Donald “Law and Order” Trump trumpets about the selfless dedication of America’s law enforcement officers. Black Lives Matter assert that some, if not many, if not most police officers are racist thugs looking to plug people of color. The reality lies somewhere in between.

I think it depends on where you live. In the main, elected sheriffs and their deputies in rural areas are respectful, honest, hard-working and humane. Big city cops, less so. Obviously, I’m generalizing, based on personal experience and hundreds of anecdotes gleaned from the mainstream media (which rarely highlight proper, let alone exemplary policing).

Generally speaking, do you respect your local police department? Do they respect you? Or is it a kind of Mexican standoff, where you and the cops are wary of each other? And here’s the big one: do you reckon it’s different for a minority citizen?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

189 COMMENTS

  1. They are too diverse a group to say that I respect or don’t respect them as such. One thing is for sure though, I fear running into a bad one.

    • That about covers it, other than to say the “bad ones” seem to go out-of-their-way to show their power without returning any respect offered.

      • So would you say … Pondering past police parallel to present plainly presents the present as prevalently puerile pompous paramilitary people punishers, punching, plugging and pillaging the prols, proffering propitiation to their personal pride and passing up the piling on of proper penalties for police partaking in prohibited party pharmaceuticals, pilfering private property. Pigs.

        • Shall we call you “P”?

          Wonderful alliteration, except for pharmaceutical. Alliteration is, after all, about the starting sound not letter of each word.

    • “I fear running into a bad one.”

      Yep. That summarizes it for me, too. Over the years I had occasion to work with deputies, prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys who taught in our college’s criminal justice program. All of them—every single one—was wary of bad cops. These were people who worked “in the system” but because we worked together didn’t feel the need for espousing the” blue party-line” when we talked. What impressed the hell out of me, and continues to be worrisome, is that these criminal justice professionals, the men and women who carry the guns and work in the court and legal systems are as afraid of bad cops as anyone else.

      • I was taking a concealed carry class a couple of years ago from a former USMC and former Deputy from the VA area. He was currently working as a DoD police officer at our local military base here. His words to us was that he was more concerned about how the younger officers would react these days to a legal concealed carry-holder than an officer with several years experience. You could see him muse and his words were (and I quote)…”I just don’t know what they are teaching these kids at the police academy these days.” This guys was, I would guess, in the early forties or late thirties. That exchange has stayed with me ever since. This was in in 2013

    • “They are too diverse a group to say that I respect or don’t respect them as such. One thing is for sure though, I fear running into a bad one.”

      That was exactly what I was going to say.

      I have never understood ‘respect the position’. The person IS the position. You earn respect, you do no demand it.

      • Looks like Cali-Cop-Zim is on loan to PBSO. Fortunately, nobody ended up dead.

  2. I have never experienced any abuse from the police anywhere I have lived. I have relatives who are good cops.
    I respect them where I live (rural California Central Valley) and they support RKBA and getting a concealed carry permit is easy here (unlike California’s big metro areas where it is close to impossible for mere mortals).

  4. My local yokels? Slightly. Chiraq? Not at all. Most of the Illinois State Po-leece have been OK. EXCEPT the one criminal who had a stack of identical tickets all for 77mph. My old van never went that fast. But I’m an OFWG who knows how to act with dudes who can ruin my life. Even when I was young no real problems. Forgot to add-across the border in Indiana they’re real azzwhole’s. Happy Labor Day!

  5. Loaded question, Robert… and the answer for me is “that depends.” I tend to make my decisions on a case by case basis, but I factor in previous experience and the reputation of individuals. Sometimes the reputation of whole groups is valid too, but must be seen in context to be valid. Thus, trust and respect are earned, not a given in any place or situation.

    The local sheriff here is a good person, a “peace officer” who works hard to earn the trust and respect of the people in this county. His predecessor was much the same, and I have worked for both of them taking referrals for CC classes. I know all seven of the deputies and they all know me.

    Yes, I would certainly trust and respect them, but in any “official” encounter would exercise great caution in what I said and did anyway. I have a local attorney to call if there ever should be a problem, and I trust that he would work with the sheriff to find the truth.

    That’s a big plus, considering the very poor reputation so many “law enforcement” organizations and individuals have these days. But it’s not a blind, blanket trust or respect. They have to earn it, ongoing, just as I have to continue to earn their trust and respect.

    There are very few people living here who fit into the various minority groups, and we don’t have any problems with those few as far as I know.

  6. I show common courtesy, unless I have a reason to other wise do so.

    But, just like the military, there are plenty of shitbags in police uniform.

    Lipstick on a pig, isn’t just for Glocks.

  7. There are good and bad people in every group of people. I get respect I give respect. I had to go through several DUI/Seat belt etc. checkpoints this weekend because for whatever reason CT gets federal money to do these things and they were out it force this weekend.

    While I hate the checkpoints, I had zero issues. All the interactions were good and friendly and all wished me a good day and to be safe. That was the extent of it.

    I have had issues in the past with the LEO being a total ass, but that has been few and far between and usually in NJ or NY.

    • I also hate checkpoints and feel that they are always used as fishing expeditions and to get the population used to hearing “Identification papers please”. Small increments are used in all the ways we are getting controlled by our “betters”.

  8. I want to respect the police. They do a very necessary job and one that I would not like to do. As a result I try to give due respect to every officer I meet, by I try like hell not to meet a lot of officers.

    The bottom line is that we spend a lot of time (law-abiding, generally, citizens) organizing and arranging our lives for the long haul. It takes only one interaction with a cop who is rogue or just having a bad day to put all of that effort into the crapper for good. This power to destroy your life’s work in an instant or on a whim is what makes people fear the police, and fear is not the same as respect.

    • Well said!

      Overall I’ve seen more good behavior from cops than bad, but the bad behavior is so destructive of people’s lives, and the cops either don’t care or even think it’s hilarious how they can ruin people, that my base position is that no cop is worthy of respect until he’s earned it.

      Indeed, since they get points for making arrests, and they’re taught to lie to us, I assume that cops are worthy of disrespect merely for beings cops.

    • Cliff, let me ask you, if you think they do a necessary job, yet have the power to ruin your whole life just because they’re having a bad day…doesn’t that kind of not mesh?

      They should not have the power to ruin a person’s life and get away with it with a little paid time off…

  9. Cops and Sherrifs out here in NM have been respectful of my OC’Ing of a firearm for the last 8 years. No problem before or after OC’Ing and I’ve been on the road driving a vehicle for almost fourty years.

    Now ask me of the agents of the BATF? Thugs, corrupt and degenerate to the core, from the top management, to the lowliest agent. If there are any exceptions to that generalization, they would be counted on one hand.

  10. I appreciate all military and first responders when they do their jobs right, which is most of the time. I’m sure individually, most of them have their hearts in the right place. But some observations I have about police:
    1. I am not in “awe” of their willingness to face danger. Law enforcement is not even in the top ten of most dangerous professions.
    2. They ALL enforce unconstitutional laws, contrary to their oath of office. ANY infringement on 2A is an example.
    3. Trust should be LE’s #1 characteristic. Too many LEOs and LE organizations have violated public trust. Even though it is a minority, the feeling is that if some cops have gotten away with doing the wrong thing, any cop CAN get away with doing the wrong thing and therefore, some of them will. When you interact with an officer, it’s like Gump’s box of chocolates: “You never know what you’re going to get.” A lot of cops recently accused of killings have been exonerated by the legal system and that’s fine. But from Ferguson through all the others, in each case, the cops clearly did not handle the situation the best way it could have been handled. That’s what we depend on them for and that’s where too many have let us down.
    4. Guns are cops’ most visible and most abuse-able tool. The obvious lack of proficiency with guns of most cops is shameful. I am not just talking about accuracy. I am also talking about safety and when to shoot and not to shoot. This line of “Most cops aren’t gun guys” is a sad state of affairs. If you carry a weapon, you may not like weapons, but you should be EXPERT in their use, no excuses.
    5. When civilian gun confiscation comes, it will be cops that will be doing it. I think about that every time I see a cop. Someday, it will be us against them, make no mistake about that.

    • They all not only enforce unconstitutional laws, they also all carry out plainly unethical orders. One may say that someone has to be a cop and that person does have to follow orders to keep the job, but that does not absolve them of these crimes. I hope there really is an afterlife where we are all held accountable.

  11. only experience with the police limited to traffic stops (of which i readily admit all but one was warranted).

    cops in NJ seemed much more likely to be “Respect my authority!” douches. the 2 times i’ve been stopped here in Arizona, both officers were incredibly polite.

  13. I just FEAR them.

    I appreciate what the good guys among them do, and I don’t think they are a waste of my tax money. But I stay the F*** away. And PRAY for a quick and uneventful ending if there’s ever any contact. Better safe than sorry.

    Oh, STOP POINTING THE GODDAMN GUNS!

    • Lol.. I empathize.

      I’m a pretty law-abiding guy, but I still pull into the nearest driveway when a Cop starts tailing me. Why risk failing a test when you can just avoid taking it?

      • If you think you’re “at risk” for taking a sobriety test, you’re pretty much likely to be “at risk” to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

        • I think that what he meant by a “test” is when a cop starts tailing a motorist and waiting for some minor infraction, like a shift into another lane or failure to use a turn signal. We all know that if you follow someone long enough, they’ll make some kind of mistake. However, that hardly speaks well of cops as helping the citizens.

  14. I give my 12th grade students who are predominantly Hispanic this advice: if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck it’s a duck. Pull your pants up, when walking down the street. Don’t speed and drive recklessly in your Honda Civic. Don’t travel w people on parole or probation. Under 18? Don’t violate curfew. Don’t be w stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.

    If you are a minor and police start questioning you state you are a minor and want your mommy.

    A big one I teach is “Officer, I do not consent to any searches” I can’t tell you the number of times over the past 9 years I have had students or former students tell me they have said that to police and the officer just warns them and lets them go.

    Be polite and respectful. You may not like the police but getting tazed hurts and getting shot really hurts. My PO sister will more than likely let you off w a warning unless you cop (ha ha) an attutude.

    And above all DON’T BREAK THE LAW!

    • Cops here have developed an interesting game when it comes to searching for alleged criminals: if they claim reason to believe their suspect is on your property, and you refuse a search, they will arrest you for aiding and abetting the criminal, and/or any other such charge they feel like (assisting to elude, whatever).

      So since I care for my elderly mother, when they wanted to search the house for someone last year I allowed them to do so (though I did impose a condition: I had to be with them while they searched; they could not leave my presence).

    • The problem is when it is not applied fairly or evenly. A car stop over a light should end in a pulled trigger.

    • Being Hispanic, they can follow every bit of your advise and still get shot anyway. Then someone like you will come along and try to blame it on them anyway.

      • “I attract more suspicion as a young ethnic male than a Caucasian senior citizen would” is absolutely true, and unjust.

        However “You can get killed just for being Hispanic” is pure unadulterated bullshit.

    • “Don’t be w stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.”

      So much could be avoided if people follow that advice.

  15. The police departments of both League City Texas and Friendswood Texas must have a pretty high standard when it comes to hiring because they seem to be the most proffessinal and courteous cops out there. The MPs when I was a young Marine…..not so much.

  16. Your rule of thumb matches my experiences. In San Diego the cops were rude and officious. The city of 70,000 where I now live employs 140 police officers and staff, and every one that I’ve met so far has been courteous and businesslike. There were probably some good cops in San Diego and are probably some bullies on the force here, but I haven’t crossed paths with either yet.

  17. It depends on if they respect me or not. I have had both good and bad experiences with police. So far the best by far are the phoenix valley police departments (at least the east valley ones, haven’t had much experience elsewhere). Outside of Phoenix though? Ohhh boy better not speed through those northern AZ one horse towns… bunch of bored cops that need to make their monthly quota up there.

  18. Never in my life have I had a good experience with them, I actually have a feint remanent of a physical scar left over from my last encounter many years back. Initially, they tried to screw me. I had to have my background checked and eventually they spit out a letter of non-statement when confronted, ‘absolving me of any wrongdoing’. Cops can’t admit guilt you know! both parties swept it under the rug, life moved on.

    Police are in the same category as shady folk, gang bangers, and domestic drama queens, just another gang of criminals except they have a lot more power behind them. They are nothing but trouble even if your record is spotless.

    When I was on the last leg of my contract in the infantry, I saw who wanted to FAP to PMO / base police and jump right into the police force when their time was up. They were all the bullies, the dirtbags, and the trouble makers, etc, who had nothing better to do than to get drunk and act stupid. The wanabe rambos and door kickers that never got any ‘action’ and are mad about it and now see their opportunity to be a door kicker in law enforcement. It attracts all the wrong people.

    Until the militarization stops, the policing for profit stops, the thuggery stops, the shady road blocks stop, and they actually start consistently serving we the people again, they get no respect from me. Respect is earned and they have done absolutely nothing to earn mine. I know they have none for me or any other peon. I see it all the time, they race down the road like they are above the law, “ghost” cars with barely visible identification, the cattle guards are still obvious enough.

    This was wildly different just 8-10 years ago, polices, people, and attitudes were all better, it was a better class of people working the job and the local LEO felt like part of the community. Some still are but with all the thugs running around, its best to just avoid anyone you recognize as police. Nothing good comes from contact with them.

    I should add that there have been several good incidents that I’ve seen both in the news and one locally but its hardly a dent in the bad.

  19. Well I don’t give cops any more respect than I give to people in general when I meet them. But that said I do already give everyone a solid basic level or respect. And that’s worked well enough, save for one notable incident involving a police lieutenant with a chip on his shoulder that pulled me over once.

  21. In general, I don’t like what I see in police.

    A deputy recently pulled us over on a classic fishing trip (claiming we were driving about 25 mph over the speed limit in terrain where that was physically impossible) and ultimately let us go.

    When I was about 21 years old, I was instrumental in helping deputies track, find, capture, identify, and get crucial evidence for a man who had captured, sexually assaulted, and kidnapped a girl. When one of the deputies pulled me over for speeding a week later, he still remembered my name. Rather than give me a stern warning and thank you for helping them capture a violent criminal, he issued my first ever speeding ticket. Had I been that deputy, I would never have issued the ticket.

    I greatly admire the officers who do their job with discretion and honor. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be as common as it should be.

    • This is likely going to be an unpopular opinion, but:

      “When one of the deputies pulled me over for speeding a week later, he still remembered my name. Rather than give me a stern warning and thank you for helping them capture a violent criminal, he issued my first ever speeding ticket.”

      If you were actually speeding, then good on the deputy. Being “one of us” shouldn’t be an excuse for doing something illegal. Neither should having done something to help them in the past. Isn’t that one of the things we always hear complaints about, the “one rule for thee, another for me” attitude a lot of people in authority seem to have?

      “Had I been that deputy, I would never have issued the ticket.” “I greatly admire the officers who do their job with discretion and honor.”

      Then, frankly, you would have been one of the ones who’s part of the problem. Doing the job with honor means acting honorably, and treating all equally. Letting someone off because you know them isn’t honorable, no matter whether it’s a capital crime or a speeding ticket.

  22. I respect any officer who uses the law as a shield and not a sword.

    If you are an officer from a state that craps on the constitution like NJ or NY I will be very wary of you whenever we have an interaction unless you prove to me that I have no reason to be worried. Unless your department has willingly stood up against BS laws, I will be polite, but I will be very cautious with you and will likely not engage in much casual conversation. There are too many horror stories of people who have been lulled into a false sense of security with police and have subsequently been imprisoned for a technicality. As much as I believe that most cops are great people, when a cop approaches me I have no idea who he is. So for my safety, I will be cautious.

    Remember that all I want to do is go home safe to my family without any trumped up charges.

    • As a fellow NJ slave, I agree. Technicalities are the name of the game here. NRA sticker and out of state plates used to warrant a pull over in the hopes that some poor bastard could be nailed. Then Christie started pardoning people for not knowing the asinine laws of a state they were driving through that doesn’t even respect FOPA. I doubt things will get better when a Demtard takes his seat.

      South Jersey is a whole different world. Wasn’t long ago that people still had truck guns, nobody cared about shooting on private property, bb guns weren’t classified as firearms per common sense, etc.

  24. I treat everyone I meet with courtesy and respect til they prove they’re not deserving.

    As for our local police? I’ve got nothing bad to say about them. They’ve treated me well. Our community is very diverse. Asians of all types, Indians, middle eastern, mexican and even a few white fellows like me.

    Only folks in my immediate area that have really badmouthed the cops are the guys with the prison ink.

      • You didn’t read the post, did you, matt? Not surprising. You skinhead types aren’t strong in the whole reading thing.

  25. I respect the LEOs that respect my rights as defined in the bill of rights. I hold our local sheriff’s department in higher regard then the PD as they tend to be normal people.

  26. Pondering past police parallel to present plainly presents the present as prevalently puerile pompous paramilitary people punishers, punching, plugging and pillaging the prols, proffering propitiation to their personal pride and passing up the piling on of proper penalties for police partaking in prohibited party pharmaceuticals, pilfering private property. Pigs.

  27. I tend not to draw conclusions about entire groups of people because when you dig deep, you’re bound to find respectful and douchey ones in any line of work. That said, work culture changes over time, and has gotten drastically worse over the past twenty years with regard to the police. I used to trust officers as a kid in the 90’s because they were friendly and helpful, especially the older ones. There were power junkies, of course, but the job didn’t breed that mindset so easily like it does today. They weren’t so damn jumpy either.

    I believe the Us vs Them mentality has always sort of been there, one tends to prioritize the well being of and trust in his/her friends, family, and co-workers over all others, but it got worse when American education took a turn for state worship and cultural masochism. 90’s high school graduates who became cops also fell directly into the catalyzing trap that was 9/11, everyone else became complacent and sheepish, and now we have a culture in which many cops believe they are answerable to no one.

    Big city progressives have shamed rural police departments as bastions of racism and abuse for decades, which was true in the Jim Crow era, not so much anymore, they just want to “nationalize” the police like everything else. Through personal experience, I have found rural cops to be much more professional, courteous, and friendly towards gun ownership, and plan on living out in the sticks as soon as I can afford to. Sometimes it still feels like America out there.

    • I live in an unincorporated community in a pretty remote area. The only police I’ve had any contact with since moving here are rural sheriff’s deputies. I would agree that rural sheriff’s deputies are generally decent enough people. I grew up in a small town pop.3000 or so. Small town city police are nothing but paid revenue collectors. My opinion of them is extraordinarily low.

  28. On the other hand, I don’t respect crotch rocket riders, either.

    They have a bad habit of riding like reckless jackasses; lane splitting, speeding, tail-gating, weaving in and out of traffic, etc. Endangering themselves and others and then whinging like bitches when they get called to the mat for it.

    Was this off duty cop right for pulling his gun? Perhaps not, but, by his own helmet video, the bike rider was threading cars and seemed to be in an awful hurry to get a haircut.

    Conclusion: assholes everywhere.

    • As a lifelong motorcyclist and gun owner, I don’t dispute your assertion that some riders can be pretty damned dumb, but going solely by the video referenced, I think you jumped to conclusions. And if said rider DID have a ticket or several coming, well, there’s a smart way and a dumb way to handle that sort of thing, too.

      Tom

    • Conclusion: It’s ok for a cop to pull a gun on someone who isn’t initiating any violence, as long as it’s someone I don’t like.

  29. I respect the police as an institution. I respect individual officers on a case by case basis. I am always respectful when interacting with officers of the law as per Chris Rock.

  30. Of course there are good people and bad people in any profession. No point in judging the entire group based on interactions of one individual with another. So, instead, I will recite an experience that involved over 1,000 cops in one place; that should be statistically significant enough to make a judgement. Several years ago, a local cop here in rural Virginia was on a call as a backup to another officer responding to a domestic disturbance. No weapons were reported, no threats to life. This particular cop, about 25 years old, two years out of the military, had already crashed two police vehicles in his short career. This time, going through the middle of town, toward the end of the rush hour (still a fair amount of traffic), was flying somewhere between 110 (according to the sheriff) and 120+ mph in a 45 mph zone (with the cruiser lights flashing). He hit an elderly couple who did not react fast enough to get out of the way (what a surprise!), put them in the hospital, bounced off their car and went into a light pole. At that speed, he literally split the cruiser in two halves, which ended up on the opposite sides of the road. So, most people would call him a “bad apple,” although, considering his actions and how he put other people at risk of death and injury, he should be considered a criminal. A person not wearing the uniform, under similar circumstances would most likely be considered a criminal. But, he was proclaimed a “hero,” given a State funeral and had over one thousand police officers attending from all across the country. We can each make our own judgement, but in my opinion, when criminal actions of an individual are covered up by his organization and the criminal is proclaimed a hero – that makes the organization criminal.

    • Police funerals should always have a Speaker for the Dead, who tell about the deceased bluntly and honestly.

  31. In Oregon, local sheriffs can be empire-builders because of the way budgeting works; we had a sheriff who was not pro-gun and trampled rights in other ways, but the commissioners here explained they either approved his budgets in toto or shut down the entire department.

  33. “Good” cops enforcing unjust laws are still “bad”. “I am just doing my job” does not work now and never did. I don’t respect cops or the institutions they are supporting (if unjust) even if they have some good intentions.

  34. As a group or institution, NO, as individuals maybe. In the world in which I live respect is earned everyday. You want respect you live the Golden Rule, leos want special rules and treatment and big fat paychecks for themselves and then talk down to and abuse the very people that ante up those checks. Are there good apples, yes there are , but they are silent apples and therefore become enablers, accessories after the fact. Real men and women speak out against evil. That will get you respect.

  35. I answer this at the individual level.

    I’ve had courteous and professional interactions with some police and not so much with others.

    I don’t have many interactions with police, but when I do I don’t assume them to be polite and professional right off the bat, nor do I assume that they’ll be douches. I wait to see how it plays out. The professional cop gets his courtesy returned. The jack wagon gets the bare minimum I can give him without making things worse.

    Even the nicest and most professional cops can have a bad day and come off like a dick.

  37. The existence of the word “testilying” and the endless demand for special treatment placing themselves above the law and not obeying the law makes police officers unworthy of respect until earned.
    We have too many plump pampered piggies with their snouts in the public trough, and no public will to curb them. The only way to fix the police and prosecution in this country is to remove immunity and impose consequences. If lying in court results in a felony or disbarment we may start getting honest law enforcement as the bullies and liars end up jailed or sued into bankruptcy and barred from law or police work. But don’t hold your breath because a Supreme Court packed with prosecutors and a history of ruling against the 4th amendment is unlikely to turn on their own.

    • Joe – When I wore a badge there were numerous disciplinary actions which could be taken if an officer screwed up – and being human, they certainly did. Fines far out of proportion to what a citizen would have to pay for the same offense were the norm with a loss of days off being another. However, the ONE thing which would get someone fired INSTANTLY was being caught in a lie in a report, in court, or at a trial board. If you screwed up, the best thing you could do was tell the truth, take your lumps, and you’d probably keep your job. Get caught in a lie and you’d be GONE.

      • Too bad that isn’t universal. Here, get caught in a lie and they just transfer you. A probation officer (here it’s a deputized position) in this county was caught lying in court, and all that happened was they made him a plainclothes deputy instead. The attorney who caught him in his lie tried to get him dinged for perjury, but the D.A. refused to do anything (our D.A. who has been investigated for ethical violations three times I know of, and still gets re-elected).

        • The Washington Post Magazine once characterized our department as being “ham-fisted” because that’s the kind of policing the majority of our citizens wanted at that time. The demographics and attitudes changed and the cops had to change with them – so we did, being under a consent decree from the DOJ being a very strong impetus. Complaint of Police Practices forms became readily available at every police station, library, and city/town hall in the county.

          I only had to sit once on a trial board as the officer of equal rank for an officer who was charged with use of excessive force for striking a handcuffed prisoner who had fought with one of his officers. The officer who had fought the suspect was honest and forthright; another officer on the scene and the defendant officer much less so, so it boiled down to the forensics and the credibility of the officers’ testimony. The major, captain, and I all agreed that the officer was guilty as charged and we had to recommend an appropriate disciplinary action to our Chief of Police. As much as I hated to do it because I knew the officer and liked him, I had to agree with them to recommend termination because the officer had lost a stripe before for a similar incident. The Chief concurred and at the end of the day, his badge and duty belt were on the Chief’s desk.

  38. I don’t respect or disrespect cops. I treat them the way I would treat anyone else — warily, but in a friendly manner.

    Is it worse for minorities? Yes. I know damn well that it is. Is it racism, pure and simple? Maybe. Or maybe it’s experience.

    My exposure to members of minority groups has been extremely favorable, so I don’t view them in a bad light. Young men of any color set off my alarms, because by and large they are the ones committing crimes. Black, white, brown, yellow, they’re all the same to me — potential muggers and thieves.

    Maybe I’d be less warmly disposed to minority groups if I was a cop spending a lot of time dealing with the dregs of society.

  39. Every person I know that is anti-cop or even slightly so has had at least one bad encounter with an officer. Makes sense, right? Personally speaking, each and every one of the stories I have been told had one thing in common: The cops got an attitude from the citizen they were interacting with, or the law was actually broken. Exercising your first amendment right when you interact with the police is your call, but every choice has a consequence.

    Would most people cop an attitude with a professional UFC fighter (and you were unarmed)? Chances are the smart bet would be no, why? Because we all know that choice is going to cost you. Mouth off to a UFC fighter, lose some teeth… poke a bee hive, get stung, piss off a cop and you might spend the night in jail.

    I can hear the angry responses being hammered into keyboards around the world… but let me say this..

    For anyone who says and has ever said cops should remain professional at all times and that regardless of your actions they shouldn’t treat you any different, that they shouldn’t piss you off in return, and that they shouldn’t find a way to make you pay for either breaking the law, coming damn close or simply talking smack…. I say this in return… Put yourself in their shoes. When was the last time your life was threatened? When was the last time you feared for your life? When was the last time you had to deal with a smart ass, you know the kind that your first instinct was to put six feet under? In your day to day job do you interact with decent people? Think about a cop working in a tough neighborhood, imagine the quality of life that guy/gal enjoys.

    Are there bad cops, of course there are. Just like there are criminals who use guns to commit crimes in a sea of law abiding gun owners. Everyone that frequents this site can make that distinction easily but somehow accepting that most cops are good is like asking CNN to not blur out Trump t-shirts.

    Get off your high horse insisting that cops are must be anything but superhuman because you don’t like someone telling you your behavior is unacceptable. The majority of police officers are good, decent people doing a job that most people wouldn’t do. So if you dislike the police so damn much, apply to be one. Make positive changes from the inside, lead by example.

    • So, to summarize your comment, you seem to be saying that when interacting with a thug, expect the thug to do what a thug does? Wow! I’m glad that you think that you’re living in a civilized society!

    • Really it depends on the officer. Yes, a lot of people give the cops lip and make the situation worse but that’s not always the case.

      In my life I’ve had maybe 15 encounters with police. Most were good, but a few were not. I certainly didn’t do anything to precipitate the bad. The officer was just in a bad mood or didn’t give a fuck.

      1) As a middleschooler I was ordered to turn out my pockets simply for being in public. I didn’t know any better and I complied. Nothing was found because I wasn’t doing anything. I didn’t initiate contact and the first words that either of us said were spoken by the officer when he pulled up and said “Empty your pockets”. Unprofessional and illegal.

      2) In high school I was the DD for a party. Again, I didn’t give anyone an attitude. The Sgt. couldn’t tell the difference between a silver Jeep and a silver Nissan. Someone in the Nissan said something and I got fucked for it. He made a girl who was shitfaced drive my car when I was dead nuts sober, unlawfully detained me and threatened me with physical violence for absolutely no reason. Even to the point of making me get out off the car so that he could menace me with an expandable baton by waving it under my nose. In this case I’m dead certain that if I had given this guy lip he would have put me in the hospital/killed me with the help of his four buddies and then written it up as though I started it. SFCSO is about as unprofessional as they can get.

      3) Right after college I was pulled over on I-70 just West of Columbus, Ohio. Again, no lip from me. I produced all the documents and was quite pleasant. He took my information, ran it, came back and asked what I was doing. I told him I was in Springfield to close a bank account. He perks up and asks how much cash is in the car. I told him about $35 because the account was closed and the money transferred into a cashier’s check. I show him the check. He asks if I knew why I was pulled over. I stated that I was not certain as I was not speeding or doing anything illegal. Do I have a brake light out? I received a basically unintelligible response about my tailpipe as he was breaking off to walk back to his cruiser.

      Absolute bullshit. I’m not fucking stupid here Mr. State Patrol. I was a lone guy (plus dog, but he didn’t know that until the stop when 90lbs of fur and teeth expressed it’s displeasure with him) driving East on a major drug trafficking corridor. Mr. Trooper saw a lone person driving a sports car (’03 WRX) with a New Mexico tag and decided to shake the tree to see if he could get some fruit (a trunk full of drugs). His half-assed excuse for pulling me over is prima facie evidence that he had no real reason to pull me over. Now, I was used to getting scrutiny from the police in Ohio because a NM tag looks exactly like an Ohio “party plate” (multiple DUI) tag. That doesn’t bother me. This guy pulled me over for absolutely no reason he could actually articulate, that does bother me because what does he do to other people? Unprofessional.

      4) Long story short, a few years back, a friend of mine was a victim of “the knockout game” at a bar. I went to get my trauma kit out of my car and a very unprofessional officer physically attacked me saying I had a knife (seat belt cutter from Gerber) and screaming at me while spitting in my face before I’d even said a word. He continued to scream and berate me until other officers [illegally] searched my bag and showed him what was in it. He still continued to scream and berate me and told me that if he saw my kit again I’d be going to jail (for what, I don’t know). I was later informed that he was in a very bad mood because his wife had just served him with divorce papers, but I also picked up that he was using steroids (or had personality issues that would have barred him from being a cop in the first place). Fine, take the day off. Unprofessional as fuck.

      My other interactions, as a witness and so forth have all been pleasant and professional. So yeah, I don’t hate cops but I don’t intrinsically trust them either. They get the respect they earn and I don’t assume that the guy on scene is gonna be professional nor do I assume he’s gonna be a jackass. I let him set the tempo and I react.

      Just like dealing with any other group of people: sometimes you get a great cop, usually you get a decent one but sometimes you get an asshole roid-raging fucktard. Fortunately the latter is much less common than the former but I’ve when total assholes are 4/15ths of what I’ve dealt with, I don’t assume I’m getting a professional.

    • The cops got an attitude from the citizen they were interacting with, or the law was actually broken.
      Bullcrap!
      I have been charged with crap because some parole officer likes to stir up trouble and calls the Gestapo cops on the imaginary perpetrator.
      Bitch and Billy could not keep her and his story straight in court which is the only reason I walked.

    • “Every person I know that is anti-cop or even slightly so has had at least one bad encounter with an officer.”

      I’ve never had a bad personal encounter with a cop. Then again, I’m as white as the driven snow.

      “When was the last time your life was threatened? When was the last time you feared for your life? When was the last time you had to deal with a smart ass, you know the kind that your first instinct was to put six feet under? In your day to day job do you interact with decent people? Think about a cop working in a tough neighborhood, imagine the quality of life that guy/gal enjoys.”

      Cops volunteer for the job. If they can’t be professional, then they need to quit and find a different job where they’re not given a badge and a gun, that is, authority to suspend an individual’s rights and even end their lives by the power of the government.

      “Are there bad cops, of course there are. Just like there are criminals who use guns to commit crimes in a sea of law abiding gun owners. ”

      We can shoot criminals in self defense.

      “Get off your high horse insisting that cops are must be anything but superhuman because you don’t like someone telling you your behavior is unacceptable. ”

      Get off your high horse and your fantasy world that assumes cops only punish people who deserve it. THIS attitude is what enables bad cop behavior and what gets innocent people killed without any accountability.

  40. Most LEOs are honorable men and women.There are some should never be allowed to have a badge because of their personality and character issues. What disturbs me the most is how departments go out of the way to defend the few bad apples who should be fired or in some cases be doing prison time. Another observation I have made is that police in liberal states like Maryland, NY, NJ or Mass tend to think the Constitution does`nt exist. It can get risky for exercising Fourth Amendment rights in those states given that some of their officers have itchy trigger fingers and a desire to arrest someone on trumped up charges. Because I`m going to travel in those liberal enclaves I plan to mount a GoPro inside the car. Maryland tends to harass people driving through the state that have Florida tags.
    Most of the sheriffs and local police chiefs in Florida respect the Bill Of Rights and do not abuse citizens. The exception is Orlando which has a long record of abuse and excessive force cases with multiple lawsuits filed against the city and individual officers.

  41. I personally know and have worked with quite a few of the local officers from the sheriff and the local pd. Both groups have been quality, upstanding folks who I found to be consistently honest and professional, given the job that they have to do.

    The ones who turned out to be dirty were the guys and girls on the drug task force. They’re always tricking senior citizens (who in these parts are desperately poor and mostly uneducated) into selling a few pain pills to a young CI just to get a conviction. These are people who wouldn’t have sold their pills otherwise that were pressured into selling a few pills – usually in a school zone to enhance the charges – by some dirt bag confidential informant looking to get their own pending charges reduced or dropped by working for the DTF. This cycle just keeps feeding itself. And when there’s a bust involving large sums of cash that are seized? Amazingly, these public employees of moderate pay can afford extravagant in-ground swimming pools and other luxuries that no one else seems to be able to afford.

  42. Ummmmmmm Nah well maybe sometimes. I have a little bit of knowledge on that clip that was shown.
    The local Deputies I know personally, yes alot of respect. I know what they do daily here. I also have had my issues with some of the newer hires. Palm Beach County in an effort to save some money. Has taken a short cut on the training for the newbies. They are for the most part coming out of the County Corrections Dept. These kids and they are kids. Havent a clue how to talk to the general public. Let alone an older population. Give them an inmate and all they know is too intimidate them. That doesnt translate over to well with the general population here. Wellington is a mixed community as most are here in Southern Palm Beach. Very wealthy right next to very poor. Separate and not exactly equal justice prevails here.

  43. My respect for police ranges from “absolutely” to “enough respect given to this asshole so he doesn’t arrest me” depending on the situation and individual in question.

  44. I take it on a case by case. I will be respectful and cooperative as I expect the officer to be polite and professional. That being said I haven’t had a run in with the law in a long time. Had a serious encounter decades ago when I was a dumbass 14 year old. A buddy convinced me his neighbor wouldn’t mind if we took his van for a joyride at 2am. Needless to say we ended up doing some pretty stupid stuff and we weren’t even drinking. Got pulled over by a dozen cops and they called our parents to come pick us up. No guns drawn, no get on the ground, no cursing or yelling. They would have been well within their right to roll up on us like SWAT the way we were driving. I appreciate their restraint and not arresting us. To this day I haven’t done anything but get a ticket or two. I learned my lesson that day and hope they know that showing a little restraint sometimes pays off.

  45. Respect is earned. I only know one officer on a personal level that has earned my respect. Beyond that, I’ll be courteous to them, but that is not the same as respect. So far, I only had to deal with one cop that was a little overzealous and accused me of lying to him. When I suggested that I would like his supervisor present for the traffic stop, and possibly my lawyer, his attitude towards me improved.

  47. I usually have had a lot more problems with big and medium city police and much better luck with rural sheriff departments.
    Usually the larger the municipality, the worse everything gets.

  48. Worked as a probation officer for a few years, and met some cops who were pretty unprofessional and well below what I felt comfortable working with. But other than that, as a civie, I really haven’t had any problems.

    The few times I’ve had interactions such as getting stopped for a traffic issue, I’ve found that a little respect and honesty goes a long way. I got stopped once on my way to the range going 20 mph over, which in my state is actually a criminal offense. I’d just had an argument with my now ex-wife and was still going over and over it in my head. We’ve all been there.

    I had my EDC on me and a whole raft of guns in the back seat that I was going to shoot at the range to do some stress reduction. I was respectful, told him I was completely in the wrong, and I apologized for not keeping my mind on my driving. He wrote me a ticket for going 19 over to save me the criminal charge and we both went on our way with no harm done.

    In my experience, if you don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.

  49. Coming from a Police family, I was taught to respect them unless they acted like assholes, in which case, I was taught all bets were off.

    • All bets are off except for the part where they can beat the shit out of you, shoot you, call for back up and do it all over again with help and almost certainly face no consequences.

      But yeah. Other than all that and the full force of the legal machine backing them up while it attempts to grind you in to pieces small enough to sweep under the rug, all bets are off. Level playing field.

  50. Mexican standoff. I have been robbed by them and have had to run for my life with an injured family member on multiple occasions (no i was not doing anything illegal but taking care of family who also had no warrant or did anything wrongdoing ).

    Even had one sheriff tell me to leave town after i showed him text from some guy repeatedly said he would murder me on sight. This is a man who had paranoid schizophrenia and has had shoot outs and standoffs with police.

    Not all police are bad, but then again i have met decent people who run in street gangs. I know not to get friendly or make sudden movements. Polite hello and good byes.

    Just for good measure i have never been arrested or booked. My family member was an elderly black man who suffered the attrocities of segregation and jim crow.

  51. I respect the local police. But since I live in NH, I fear police in states to the south of me. NY, MA, CT, NJ, MD and WA DC all have laws that if I need to transport guns through their states could be a problem if something went wrong. I do my best to follow FOPA, but that is still not a guarantee against problems.

  52. My uncle was a detective for the state police. As such, I have a great deal of respect for them. I don’t know how I’d feel if I had no family connection, but I would always treat them with respect, which is a different matter.

  53. Nope. Respect has to be earned and anyone of such low morals and suspect character that they became a cop is about as likely to earn respect as an ice cube is likely to survive a blast furnace. There are no good cops. Every cop is by training a liar and there are no good liars.

  54. On an individual level I treat peace officers with the respect accorded any decent human being deserves. I’m fairly fortunate that I can and have spoken to otherwise youthful/jumpy officers in a firm but polite manner without being scary or intimidating. That’s not to say I don’t fear semi-psychotic control freaks who think that the only way to deal with the public is to scare the hell out of everyone at gunpoint, because such people are truly dangerous when afforded legal and physical protection under the color of law. It makes it hard to sympathize even as a human being when one of them gets their ass killed.

    That said, I don’t believe cops are heroes just for doing their job, however difficult and thankless it may be most of the time. Compared to many occupations, they are well-paid (too well, in some jurisdictions) with nice, cushy pensions and benefits that have virtually bankrupted some cities over the years, and despite assertions to the contrary, their job is statistically safer than quite a few far-lower paying jobs (convenience store clerk, anyone?) out there. I remember when Slick Willie rammed his so-called ‘crime’ bill through – he would go from city to city, rounding up unfortunate officers either by politcal duress or outright bribery and force them to pose behind him in dress uniform while he spewed his ten pounds of horseshit into a five pound bag for the media by calling them ‘heroes’ and hoisting them on a petard. It’s impossible to overstate what a disservice he did. Being a cop is indeed a honorable profession, but it does not in and of itself make anyone a hero. Individual bravery and fortitude at risk to one’s own life is what makes a hero. As a result, unrealistic, media-driven public expectations have made everything a lot harder for everyone.

    At an institutional level, my faith and trust in law enforcement has largely evaporated. Take the FBI, for example. Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity – those words have lost their meaning. When I see someone like Director Comey sit up there in front of Congress and give a lying traitor like Hillary Clinton a free pass, I cannot respect or take seriously anything any of his agents do or say. Perception defines reality, and the reality is that the FBI, along with the ATF, and any number of alphabet-soup law enforcement agencies, have no more credibility than a rattlesnake under my sleeping bag. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it is one of their own making, and if they want things to improve then they will have to clean up after their own shit, as it were.

    Tom

  55. As much as any other human. Any cop that infringes my civil rights will be shot, just like anyone else.

  56. Said it before and I’ll say it again: The only lawful policing position is the county sheriff. Other than that all PDs are from city level on up to state and federal level are unlawful and unconstitutional, but the constitution has been completely gutted so that doesn’t really matter anyhow…

    So cops as a whole are nothing more than the armed thugs of government coercion.

    So do I respect them? Has human beings, yes, for them in uniform in their profession no, I only fear them because of their voter supported but unlawful ability to use aggressive and deadly force and cercion against citizens.

  57. Based on personal experince, a kind of yes. The list of bad actions, misuse of power, to outright criminal activity is reason to say no. Folks used to blindly trust Teachers & Priests too. How did that work out? From Waco to Freddy Grey; a badge does equal good guy.

  58. I respect police the same way I respect grizzlies, volcanoes, and tidal waves. All have great great power and look pretty cool from afar. Up close? Not so much.

    FWIW, I say this as an American by 1790 standards. Officer Friendly will rough me up like a Crip because he’d get sued by the ADL/SPLC/NAACP for roughing up an actual Crip. Gotta let that anger out on somone.

  59. Does depend on where you live–lots of PA cops are jack booted Nazis–on the other hand, some are the epitome of what police should be–have traveled all of US & TN, NY, NJ, MD, etc northeast cops are just plain bad for the most part–live in NC now have seen any bad examples

  60. Christ, what a $h!t show. As a minority who grew up and still lives in the same terrible neighborhood, I have NEVER been harassed by police. Yes, I’ve gotten BS tickets. Yes, I’ve gotten attitude. Searched even (it’s called a Terry stop) Know what? NOT. HARASSMENT. I WANT them to use every legal tool they have to wrangle these little punks out of here. Does anyone here think criminals don’t also feel like “no respect should be given until respect is received,” and repeat that mantra to themselves in their little pea brains as they violently resist lawful commands? When you play with this cop bashing fire, it’s the stupid and the young who get burned, not OFGWs. Just saying.

  62. My own, experience does not favor local Sheriffs as being any better than municipal Chiefs. The culture comes form the top down, if you have a good CLEO, the agency reflects that. When I went to the police academy many of my instructors were from the Dallas Police Department, and they had many opinions to share, including vastly unfavorable views toward Chief Brown. He was on his way out before the sniper attack. Honestly to sum it up, I would compare Brown to John WIley Price. He played favorites with the Black police union, and had an unwritten PC BS policy that any officer that shoots someone should expect to be fired. Crime has been up in a big way in Dallas. Brown’s awful policies do not encourage pro activeness. There has been a lot of sandbagging of calls, particularly domestic and any high risk calls.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/03/22/murder-rate-surges-in-dallas-up-71-percent/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6-vA_vFJiQ

    Brown should have been gone a long time ago, if he had any integrity he would have stepped down when his drug addled dirtbag son (whom he enabled for years) killed that Lancaster cop while on a PCP induced rampage.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/desoto-lancaster/headlines/20100620-Source-Dallas-police-chief-s-8568.ece

    Anyway, to contrast there is a county Sheriff locally here (to remain nameless) who runs a real POS operation. He runs his county like his own personal fiefdom. It is so bad that no one wants to work around any of his deputies. Some examples; A particular Deputy who constantly has sex with people in his unit, on duty. The most ridiculous fiasco involved another deputy that responded to a noise complaint at a local house party full of underage drinking and drug use. He ended up staying several hours, played the role of DJ for the party and posted pictures of himself on social media. Yep, he still has a job. Just because an official is “elected” does not = better and more accountable. In Texas some of the most powerful people are Sheriffs. When they are bad, they are BAD.

  63. In my eyes, everyone deserves respect unless or until they do something to lose it. So of course I respect cops and what they do.

  65. I had my life ruined by a couple overzealous, perjuring, anti-2A big city cops, who were sicced on me by an overzealous, lying, veteran-hating hoplophobe (which I’ve still not recovered from years later). The scumbag who called the “law” down on my head was a fellow trainee, and spotted me securing my .38 inside my car before heading to class at a small private vocational school. He gave a 911 dispatcher the trifecta; “He’s got a gun in school, he’s talking about murder-suicide, and he’s a veteran”.

    My soon-to-be exwife had just finished cleaning out my bank account and I was staying in a friend’s garage; so by not being able to afford a defence, I was afforded no justice.

    Yet had it been the county sheriffs who responded, instead of a gaggle of city-owned fascists, I wouldn’t have spent a single minute in jail. Even the deputies working that jail were dumbfounded & angered that I had ended up there. Had the city cops

    It was also the first time I’d ever heard “you can beat the rap, but not the ride”, as told to me by one of those gloating pigs…. right before slapping the cuffs on me.

    I had even better luck by first drawing a judge who considered me to be the next Seung Hui-Cho. It was 90 days later when my case was given to a judge who was ex-JAG, and a public defender who was also ex-JAG (who also served together); only then did my bond ($100k, down to $1000) & charges (gun in school, menacing, terroristic threats, etc) get reduced to a misdemeanor (simple carrying concealed weapon).

    But the damage had been done. My roommate had a “break-in” while I was locked up; all my valuable posessions (remaining guns, $5k Santa Cruz MTB, computer, several grand worth of moldevite) vanished, my ex-wife used the opportunity to take my Jeep (right before serving me divorce papers), and so on.

    So do I respect cops? Generally yes; as human beings, and also as I do with any other dangerous animal. But the system they work for, I absolutely distrust & despise. I’ve experience firsthand how corrupt and insane that system is, across several different .gov entities…

    • The “system” is not some abstraction existing in a vacuum – it is made of those same people that are either abusing the power that they usurped, or of those that are tacitly supporting the abusers. So, do you still have respect for them?

    • Your wife cleaned out your bank account? Same with me, with my first wife. that was many years ago. Never had a “joint” account since. Fool me once, shame on you! fool my twice, shame on me!

  66. Unless your name is Hillary Clinton the best advice on how to deal with a police officer was a U-tuber done by Chris Rock.

    Now, if your name is Hillary Clinton you can spit in their face and kick them in the nads.

    If not limit what you say to “yes Sir/Ma’am No Sir/Ma’am”…and the most important:

    “I want my lawyer.” To answer the question yes i respect LEO’s, butt, i was raised by a full bird Col.

    I was taught respect of authority from day one, now some of you posters here dont seem to have had the

    advantages i had, and y;all suffer for it.

    I made it to China by the time i was 10, and started my way back, never a problem in 60’s years dealing with the

    police worldwide, some of you are either criminals or a-holes and get treated like it.

    Stupid is as stupid does, and it cant be fixed, some of ya;ll just got stuck on it.

    • You may have missed the point of this article. Most of us know how to interact with those who hold more power; that wasn’t the question. The question, or the issue, is whether the government, through its representatives, still has the respect of the citizens? Which, essentially, translates into the perceived legitimacy of the government. Any government can rule through the use of force, but only legitimate governments can rule through respect. From the preponderance of the responses here, it is obvious that our government is heavily leaning on the use of force.

  67. Best answer: not only NO but hell NO, second answer: NO, to law enforcement, We the People” are the enemy and should be treated that way

  69. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say at the outset that I’m a retired cop. As a street supervisor there were some cops I had to keep an eye on because they were “badge happy” and tended to go overboard sometimes but those were far in the minority, the exception rather than the rule. For the most part (just like any other human being), cops will respond to you the same way you respond to them. If you’re polite and respectful, that’s very likely what you’re going to get back. In short, if you’re cool, they’re cool.

    If you respond properly to him, there should be no issues. If there are and you’ve accorded the officer the same respect he should accord to you, report the incident to the officer’s supervisor. Everybody has a boss, even the Chief of Police or Sheriff, and they are answerable to a higher authority. Go as far as you have to in order to resolve the situation.

    • >If there are and you’ve accorded the officer the same respect he should accord to you, report the incident to the officer’s supervisor. Everybody has a boss, even the Chief of Police or Sheriff, and they are answerable to a higher authority. Go as far as you have to in order to resolve the situation.

      And yet we still see cops getting off lightly for killing proven innocent, unarmed people.

      • Big_McLargehuge – “And yet we still see cops getting off lightly for killing proven innocent, unarmed people.” We are? Granted, it must be a pretty egregious example of misconduct or recklessness but I certainly haven’t seen any instances of cops getting off lightly when they dishonor the badge. If the local juries don’t “do the right thing” then the Feds step in with a Title 18 civil rights prosecution and the penalties are severe, indeed. If you have knowledge of a cop getting off lightly for a blatant abuse of his police powers, please cite it so that I can smoke over the case to see if I agree with you.

      • Show me five cases were poor, innocent people were shot in unjustified circumstances by the police, please. I am certain that it is easy for you to throw outlandish claims out there that you are spoon-fed by the corrupt media, but I have some serious doubts that you will be able to provide any hard facts to back up your claims.

    • I had a traffic case a few years ago where the officer lied when he issued the ticket. Trying to do the right thing, I approached the District Attorney with the case. Normally, the DA does not get involved in simple traffic cases. But here, because the issue involved a lying cop, the DA prosecuted the case himself, made sure that the judge would not allow me to bring up specific evidence and upheld the ticket, but most importantly, protected the lying cop. Yep, Respect…

      • Alexander – I’m really sorry that happened to you. Where I’m from, the State’s Attorney presented EVERY case, be it criminal or traffic. One of the things we were taught in the police academy and was reinforced by our Field Training Officer is that you ALWAYS were truthful on the stand in the courtroom. If you weren’t and managed to escape a perjury charge, you’d likely never prevail in that judge’s courtroom for the rest of your police career. If you issued a traffic citation or made an arrest in error and afterward realized you had erred, you needed to contact the Office of the State’s Attorney to get the charge(s) nolle prossed.

        • The smaller municipalities seem to have more honesty and accountability, although some are horror stories. In this case, Caroline county in VA is well know to subsidize its meager tax base with passing motorists. The cop claimed a magic speed of 71 in 55 (funny how that speed seems to occur on the majority of the tickets…), as read on his radar. However, I had a radar detector and I know that his radar was not turned on. At the end of the stop, when he left, he turned it on and my detector registered it, so I know the frequencies were compatible. In VA, cops do not show their victim the radar display, nor is there any printed record, save for the officer’s testimony (there must be tons of cops killed over the radar displays in other states, just like tons of cops and everyone else killed by CCW holders…).
          Realizing that the cop is lying, I politely questioned him at the site over his use of the radar and how he was observing my vehicle. I’ve had Reid technique training and the cop was acting as a classic example of a person lying. I also know that radar detectors are illegal in VA, but I was willing to bring this up, since compared to an official government representative lying under oath, my offense is irrelevant. When the DA learned of the issue involved, without warning, he personally undertook the case by showing up on queue when the case was called (simple traffic cases are not handled by DA’s in VA), convinced the judge to disallow any testimony of the officer’s behavior at the site, thus negating any Reid-backed indications of lying and reduced the case to Officer vs citizen, Radar vs nothing. Even the fact that the judge did not penalize me for having the detector (to which I admitted) is an indication that the judge was aware of what’s going on, but chose to protect the system and the income. The case was so obvious that several people in the courtroom actually applauded me (I’ve never seen that before or after!)
          The issue here is not so much that a cop lied, but that the system, when confronted with a “bad apple,” chose to leave it in the batch and allowed it to rot. Seeing this, it would be reasonable to ask how many other bad apples are there? This is just one drawn out example. There are many more, but most disturbing is when the System protects and breeds corruption and dishonesty. It makes it difficult to tell an officer from a thug. When a criminal does a criminal act, well, we all know that he’s a criminal. When the government does a criminal act – what does it make the government then?

          • ” When a criminal does a criminal act, well, we all know that he’s a criminal. When the government does a criminal act – what does it make the government then?”

            Well, they do call it the CRIMINAL justice system….

  71. Those of you who say you “fear running in to a bad one” have been watching too much of the Clinton News Network. The statistics bear out that the likelihood of having an officer use force on a person is astronomically low, PARTICULARLY if you are a law abiding citizen. I am not saying that there are not “bad cops” out there, but I am saying that there is no cop that has anything to benefit from shooting and killing a random person in cold blood. The shootings that are being portrayed in the news as acts of violence being perpetrated by racists, rampaging police officers killing poor unarmed men in the streets is a complete fallacy. In almost every one of these cases, you can see that the officers were in a situation where they were probably felt threatened; whether it was because the people were actively fighting or resisting arrest, or whether it was because the person made unexpected irrational moves and did not listen to the officer’s commands.

    Here is a sure-fire way to avoid “running into a bad cop:”

    1) Do exactly what the cop says.

    2) When in doubt, refer back to rule #1.

    Look, nobody likes being told they are wrong, being written a ticket, etc. It may take some “swallowing of pride” to be respectful to an officer, especially when you disagree with what they are telling you. However, they are given the authority to make certain calls under the law of the each state, and you are not going to get anywhere by arguing with them or resisting their orders. There is a time and a place to lodge grievances against the police, and it is certainly not in the field while they are trying to do their job. Go through the proper channels and make a complaint to their agency. Not only will this keep you safe, this will allow them to be discipline or even fired, and it will document their misdeeds and establish a pattern of behavior.

    I have family in law enforcement in a major city and a rural agency, and all of them are some of the nicest people that you would ever want to meet. These guys are not ticket writers; they are door-kicking, bad-guy chasing, hard charging cops. When they show up to help you, you are definitely be happy to see them… Unless you are breaking the law. Something that people tend to forget, these days, is that the police have a job to do, and anyone on the receiving end is not going to be happy about it. Get over it. If the worst that happens to you is that they use harsh language on you, are a little bit rude, or they write you a ticket, that is not that big of a deal. These guys deal with the worst of the worst, day in and day out. They have to be on the defensive, because if they aren’t, they may not go home again.

    Quit being a bunch of whiners! For Pete’s sake… I thought a bunch of armed citizens would be a little thicker skinned than this. If you can’t handle a ticket or a harsh attitude without getting completely focused on your hurt feelings, do you really think you are tough enough to put your life on the line to protect your community?

    • In summary, you are saying that because the cops have a tough job, we all need to submit to any abuse that the cop may dish out, at his discretion. We have the right to file a complaint with the [cop-friendly and supportive] agency. That’s all, folks!

      Is this the world you want to live in? Replacing the Bill of Rights with the discretion of the thug that you happened to run into, but with an option to file a complaint? Wow!

      • Alex, I am saying that you should submit to the law, as we all should. I am a constitutionalist, and I don’t believe that anybody’s rights should infringed upon. If you will notice, I never said anything about submitting to a cop’s “abuse;” I simply said submit to his authority. His authority is granted by the law, and it is taken from him by the law if he abuses it, as well. It sounds to me like you are just the type of person who does not like the idea of someone having authority over him. Have you ever been “abused” or brutalized by a cop? Has a cop ever come up to you and attacked you for no reason at all? If so, let’s hear the story. I doubt you have any legitimate complaint; you probably sympathize with stories of poor unarmed Michael Brown and his ilk; people that were legitimately killed by officers.

        If you really believe that the police departments in this country are so “cop-friendly and supportive” of the bad behavior of officers that they protect them, you are sadly mistaken. Even now, with so many officers and departments having officers wear body cameras, we don’t see wide-spread footage of officers abusing the general public. Aside from that, the top echelons of these agencies are politicians, and they are much more concerned about public opinion than they are backing corrupt or abusive officers.

        Is the world that you want to live in the same one that the Black Lives Matter movement wants to make a reality? A world with no accountability or enforcement of the law? A world where might makes right? If so, I don’t think I need to tell you, but I am sure there are plenty of criminals out there that are tougher and meaner than you, and they will really make you submit to them. If you truly believe that every police officer is a “thug,” then you really lack any kind of discernment between your ears, pal. There must be law and justice for there to be freedom. There must be proper enforcement of laws so that the Constitution has any affect. Yes, there is corruption in our justice system, but the major threat to our constitutional rights and safety are not from corruption at the level of a street cop; it is the corruption at the top (by your friends, Obama and Hillary).

        Do you have any other stories of police brutality and oppression that you can sight besides some lame argument about how a cop wrote you a ticket once, and he was totally “in the wrong?” I am sure that you don’t, because these agencies do an excellent job of policing the police. If you do, please tell me about how the police violated your constitutional rights, or used unreasonable force against you. If it is just another “he shouldn’t have written me a ticket” story or “he bossed me around” story, please, save it.

        You have an us-vs-them mentality about the police. You seem to forget that police are our friends, family, and neighbors; they live around you and want the community to be safe. I am not saying that they are always above reproach, but I am saying that disillusioned, media-hypnotized people that go around spouting off about how the police are out of control in this country have no idea about facts; they simply regurgitate what George Soros is spoon-feeding them. Don’t be one of those people.

        • Robert, by the thoroughness of your reply I can see that you do care about justice, and I respect that. You have made some erroneous assumptions, however. Starting at the top, there are none that I loath more than Obama and Hillary (you can throw Soros into the mix). And Michael Brown has just celebrated three years of being crime-free; wish he had started on that path sooner… So, Robert, I am very far from a flaming Democrat/Progressive/socialist/useful-idiot, and aside from my share of traffic tickets (some deserved, some not), never had the pleasure of personally dealing with the criminal “justice” system. But the observations (and a few personal experiences) that I am basing my reasoning on is not so much about individual bad apples, which happen in any profession, but on the system itself. I respect that in your experience, bad cops (dishonest, abusive, etc.) were weeded out – that’s good and my only wish that this experience would be universal. Unfortunately, it is not. As you may have gathered from my previous comments, my wrath is with the system when it protects dishonesty and abuse, as in the case of a state funeral for a mindless dope of a cop who injured innocent motorists because he still though that he was in a war zone and a DA (with the judge’s consent) who went out of his way to protect a dishonest cop who was bringing “income” to the county. In the same way, when you have a priest that rapes a child (somehow it is called “molesting” when a priest does it, rape when others do it), that is simply a person who is a criminal, but when his church and their management protects him, and does it repeatedly – that system becomes criminal. The bottom line in long-winded comment is that the legal system, the justice system and its representatives in the body of the officers as well as other departments are no longer serving the “People,” but are self-serving entities. When that happens, they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people and degenerate to the level of Third World thugs, who obtain their power through force and bribery. We, as a society, are well on the way to that sorry state of affairs that has plagued most of the world. And yes, America used to be exceptional, through laws that were uniform upon everyone. Thanks to our elected representatives, and to the wishes of the people that have and continue to elect them, we are no longer so.

          • Alex, when I called Hillary and Obama your friends, I was actually making a joke, because I doubt that most of the people that read “The Truth About Guns” are in favor of gun grabbing politicians. I hope I didn’t offend you.

            As far as bad cops go, there will always be a few. In any man-made institution, there will always be a few bad folks. Well, I say a few, but these days, it seems like the amount of “bad folks” in any given discipline is growing.

            In this system, I don’t think bad behavior is encouraged or protected. Just as many criminals get off on legitimate charges in the criminal justice system, I am sure that many of the bad cops that get caught beat the system somehow, because the same due process afforded a criminal is often afforded them. When these policemen can be legitimately shown to have violated law or policy, these agencies take action.

            The idea that the income from the tickets written by ONE cop was so necessary that the DA protected him and broke the law is a little bit ridiculous, don’t you think? There are many other cops out there writing tickets; why protect one bad one? As soon as he gets fired, they can hopefully hire a better one to take his place.

            I completely agree with you on the issue of priests molesting children, but do we say that every Christian church is corrupt because there are some bad priests? No, we don’t. We recognize that there are sometimes bad men in positions that require a personal of strong moral fiber. The way that we can tell if this is just one bad person, or a systemic problem is this: examine the policy or guidelines for a person that is in that position, and see if the person in question is following the policy or guidelines, or if they are acting on their own. In this case, when a priest molests a child, is he doing something that the church requires or encourages him to do? Does the church approve of his actions? If so, it is a systemic problem, and the system needs to be changed or abolished. If he is doing something prohibited, unapproved or discouraged by the church, then the person must be assumed to be acting in their own interest, and they should be held personally accountable; not the agency or organization that they were supposed to be representing. On the flip side of the coin, let’s take an Islamic terrorist. If one of these men commits suicide by blowing up a bomb and killing many innocent people, is he doing something that is required or encouraged to do by his religion? The answer is an emphatic “yes,” so we can say that terrorism is, in fact, s systemic problem in Islam, and the entire religion must be changed or abolished.

            There is certainly a self-serving component to any job that any person holds; they want to get paid according to the work that they do. With cops, they are not being paid based on the amount of tickets that they write, the amount of people they arrest, etc., so it is difficult to make a case that individual street cops are self-serving entities that violate people’s rights out of self-interest. Cops do take the job in part for the pay, but many of them take the job for the honor of being a public servant. I know this, because I am related to three police officers of various ranks who work for three different agencies in two different states.

            This case could certainly be made in regards to politicians further up the chain of command, but to disrespect or refuse to respect the officers that people come in to contact with on the street because you think that they simply want to violate your rights is just ignorant. If this was the case, why would officers stand in skirmish lines and allow violent protestors to throw things at them and berate them? If they were self-serving entities, wouldn’t they simply start beating people and arresting them? In these cases, they are very selective with the people that they arrest, and they try to do it in as controlled and non-aggressive of a manner as possible.

            “When that happens, they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people and degenerate to the level of Third World thugs, who obtain their power through force and bribery.” How do American police obtain power through force and bribery? When was the last time you heard of someone bribing a cop? When was the last time you heard of a police officer beating up on someone to make a point? As much as the media tries to demonize the police, these types of incidents are rarely reported, so we can safely assume that it rarely happens these days.

            The current problem plaguing our society is that the federal government is out of control. When our rights are stripped away, when we are systematically oppressed and our society crashes into a third-world state, it will be through the actions of those at the top; not because of the police officers patrolling our streets.

            • Robert, I’m too thick-skinned to take offense (in most cases…); being a Hillary or Obama supporter would really come a full circle for me. Anyway, in my example of the DA supporting a lying cop, it wasn’t a single cop that he was supporting – he could not allow any cop to be exposed as a liar; the DA was protecting his turf. For all I know, he might have chewed half of the cop’s ass off in private, but that’s not the point. The cop represents the system, and the system was protecting itself. Which brings me to the main point – the “system” is supposed to be by the people for the people; instead, it is us vs them. I have never had criminal issues and except for my share of traffic tickets (not that big of a deal, although when unjust it is very frustrating), I have not personally ran afoul of the system. But I am also constantly aware that the police force is not here to help me and in most cases will probably hurt me in some way, if we have any kind of an interaction. In fact, only once in my 50+ years have I met a cop who was truly helpful (helped me change a tire in a bad spot, and he volunteered to help me!), but all other interactions have been from neutral to negative. After a while, one would start developing a feeling, just like another commenter said – I like them when they’re not around, or something to that effect.

              When you mention the guidelines and the laws, please keep in mind that often there are those, and there is reality. For example, Stalin’s constitution for the USSR was remarkably similar to the US Constitution, but I think that we all know that the reality was a bit different.. The Catholic Church certainly does not condone child rape in its official publications, but rape, sex and orgies have been standard fare at the Vatican since at least the Middle Ages. And I did not mean to imply that cops here are on the take individually (although twice in my college days in NYC I have been “suggested” by a cop to give him cash, or he would write a ticket, one of those occasions was just because my car broke down in the middle of a bridge!). But, admittedly, this would be unheard of in rural Virginia. The issue is not cash bribes – the issue is protecting their turf against the citizens. And that is just plain wrong.

              I am very happy when the cops dispatch a thug like Michael Brown. I am also very happy when an armed citizen dispatches a thug like Michael Brown. I am not bashing the police because I have a racial or other chip on my shoulder and not even because I’ve gotten some tickets over my lifetime. I am suggesting that the often occurring situation of police vs citizens is an unhealthy situation for a civilized society, with a likelihood of very unpleasant results down the line.

              • Nicely said, alexander. The police are supposed to be our guardians; they have forgotten Plato’s point that guardians must be above reproach — not just individually, but as a body, as a system. So we come back to the ancient question of who will guard the guardians, since we see plainly that they are not interested in doing it themselves. The answer is that the guardians must be guarded by the well-armed citizenry — and part of that guarding is a citizenry pushing liberty to its limits constantly, that the power of the guardians does not encroach incrementally.

                Of course it doesn’t help that the right to trial by jury has been eviscerated, turned into a caricature of the original, where the jury actually had power… but that’s another topic.

              • A most interesting discussion among Roymond, Robert, and Alexander. Can and should the police police the police? Do doctors police doctors? Do lawyers police other lawyers? Yep, they sure do, and in most places not with the transparency of police trial boards. I was a street cop and then first-line supervisor for 15 years before I was retired on disability and one of my mantras is that the average citizen knows as much about being a street cop as I know about nuclear physics, i.e., pretty much diddly squat. My department, the 28th largest in the country, is in a state where there is mandatory training for police officers. You must have so many hours of training before you can pin on a badge and periodic in-service training to maintain your certification as a police officer. Fail to do that training and you will be decertified and lose your job, no matter how long you’ve been a cop.

                Do cops sometimes make bad decisions, do downright stupid things, and sometimes let their personal biases influence their decision whether or not to make an arrest? No doubt about it. There was more than one occasion when a “counseling session” with one of my officers started with, “What the hell were you THINKING?” from me. Even so, I would come down harder on an officer for a mistake of the heart than for a mistake of the head. Cops are human beings and as such – they make mistakes sometimes. If one of my officers misinterpreted a law, that was one thing. A quick explanation of what the law was and why he was was wrong was about all it took to get his head right. If an officer hung what we called a “hummer”, i.e., a truly bad charge, on someone just out of spite, then more severe corrective action was in order.

                I’m personally proud that I served on an excellent police department and was respected as a good street cop and then street supervisor. I’ve been retired for over three decades and the friendships I formed as a cop are still strong. Those people do a difficult and sometimes dangerous job and the great majority of the time, they do it very, very well. I shall always regard police work as a profession and not simply a job.

              • Mike, our sheriff’s and police departments could use help from someone like you!

                Thinking back, there have been places I lived where I did respect the cops; they were essentially all the things they’re supposed to be. But that IMO is because they saw themselves not as law enforcement officers but as peace officers — their job wasn’t to slap people with arrest any time they saw something wrong, it was to use the law as a tool to keep the peace. I can recall instances in two towns where officers came along where an outdoor all-night party was going on, where there were obviously laws being broken, but the response, to quote one of those officers, was “Everyone staying safe?” So long as no one was being hurt, they weren’t going to come down on anyone — the flip side being that if anyone was being hurt, they came down like Thor’s hammer on anyone and everyone involved (as an example, at a pool party where someone was spiking the drinks for minors and an accident resulted, they issued summonses to everyone who they considered probably knew about the spiking). Here in Oregon, when I was at OSU, cops came by a swimming hole with a railroad bridge and a covered bridge, and as long as everything was peaceful they went on their way; the stiffest comment I ever heard from one was, “Todd (a kid who was 16), your dad had better be okay with you and your friend there” — the “friend” being a twenty-ounce beer, and the result being Todd gulping and handing the beer to someone else.

                That’s civilized policing. The moment the goal of an officer is to catch everyone breaking any law or even looking like it, corruption enters in and tyranny lurks in the corner. The law was made to serve the citizens, not the citizens to serve the law.

              • Hi, Mike, I appreciate you bringing a voice from the other side to this discussion. I think you summed it up appropriately. I am not denying that there are some bad apples, but it does not mean the system is broken. My brother works for an agency where ANY allegation of wrong doing requires a complete, formal investigation by the department, which is conducted in parallel with a civilian oversight board. It would be nice if more civilians could see what goes on in these investigations just to disprove the fallacy that there is some kind of internal approval and protection of dirty cops. What a ridiculous sentiment, and I am sure that it is insulting to policemen like yourself who try to hold themselves to the highest standards.

                Thank you for your service.

              • Mike, I appreciate that you’re enjoying the interchange. So difficult nowadays to get anyone to pay attention to more than a one-liner. But the one-liner that I can add here is that your commendable experience is from many years ago. I believe that the nature of the police force, along with the nature of our government, has changed for the worse in the last 30 years.

    • Sorry, Robert, but this isn’t just about traffic tickets.

      My lack of respect for cops started when they asked to search my house for evidence against someone who had visited. When I returned, I found my place in a condition worse than I would expect from a frat party where a fight had broken out — bookshelves dumped, furniture ripped open, etc. I’ve seen the same thing in two other police “searches”.

      I’ve mentioned other instances that contributed to my lack of respect, but I’ll add one more — a case I won where the judge decided the officer had no grounds for even approaching me, but was engaged in persecution of a citizen.

      Then there was the time I was on a jury and we unanimously agreed the cop was making crap up, a piece of which was physically impossible. Not many months later, that cop was dismissed by the department for blatantly “inventing” evidence… and was promptly offered a job by the next county over.

      • So, basically, here is why you don’t respect the police:

        1. The cops made a mess in your house with your consent (which, by the thoroughness of the search sounds like they were looking for drugs).
        2. “Persecution of a citizen?” Never heard of such a thing. In any case, you were arrested, apparently. What was the charge brought against you?
        3. A cop was “making crap up.” That is unverifiable and subjective. On top of that, how do you know about this cop’s employment history?

        Like I said in my original post, there are going to be bad apples in such a large bunch, but just because your only legit gripe is that you THINK some cop was lying on the stand, that means you shouldn’t respect their authority?

        Sounds like you have an awful lot of run ins with the cops. Do you think maybe the problem isn’t them? How many times have you been arrested, exactly?

        • Pure bullshit.

          I consented to a search, not to unlimited vandalism.

          The judge called it persecution of a citizen.

          No, “making crap up” is not unverifiable and subjective; when a cop testifies to something physically impossible, it is definitely verifiable and objective.

          Yes, I have run-ins with cops, mostly because I am not willing to give up lawful behavior of which they do not approve (to paraphrase the judge who said I was being persecuted).

          As for “a few bad apples”, if they won’t purge their ranks, those who are supposed to be our guardians, then they are all bad apples. As an analogy, if a company selling apples tolerated one in twenty apples being contaminated with a substance they admit has crippling effects known to be permanent, would you trust ANY of their apples?

          • Don’t try to project your problem with legitimate authority on all police. You didn’t address the issue of your arrest record, which certainly adds weight to the fact that it is due to the amount of times you have been forced to interact with the police.

            To use your analogy, if there was a significant amount of apples that had a permanent crippling effect, then the vendor would have to stop selling them, because no one would eat ANY apples as long as that problem was existent. That fact that majority of police don’t act outside the law as vigilantes is proof enough that your “apple” analogy is horse manure. Police don’t have a ‘crippling effect’ on law abiding citizens, because if they did, majority of law-abiding citizens wouldn’t trust them or voluntarily call them when dealing with criminal issues. I can guarantee you that if you followed the law and complied with what the officers asked you to do, you wouldn’t have been arrested to begin with.

            You sound like a “Black Lives Matter” supporter; the type of person that protests the police because you want to break the law without any authority challenging your actions. If you want to break the law, that’s fine; just don’t cry when the police show up. I have lived a long, satisfying, constitutionally free life, and I have never been worried about being arrested, because I respect the law and those that uphold it. Maybe you should try it sometime, and see how your quality of life improves.

            • “To use your analogy, if there was a significant amount of apples that had a permanent crippling effect, then the vendor would have to stop selling them, because no one would eat ANY apples as long as that problem was existent.” — Here I have to disagree with you. The analogy applies to a private business, which depends on the goodwill of its customers. Governments do not depend on the goodwill of the citizens, except for extremely egregious cases, which result in revolutions or civil wars. Under normal circumstances, governments depend on the use of or a threat of force. I do not need to explain what would happen to any citizen who decides that he no longer wishes to support his local police department, or fire department, or the mayor, or any other department, local or national. We do not have a free choice – if there are rotten apples in the batch, and they are not removed, you will pay for the entire batch nevertheless. I believe that unless most government functions are privatized, the dishonesty, abuse and graft will always go on, no matter how well any local person tries to fight it. There will be small scale successes here and there (and your old department may have been such a success), but overall, the government system is a socialist endeavor and as such will always have corruption.

              • Alex, you applied that analogy of a private business to law enforcement. Law enforcement can not be run as a business, because when profit is associated with productivity, that is when you get overzealous employees arresting innocent people and doing dirty deeds to maximize profit. This is why the federal government is out of control; because of the amount of money involved. Law enforcement cannot depend on the “well-being” of its customers, because its target demographic is the entire population, and they do not get to opt out of following the law. No law-abiding citizen should try to opt anyway, because this free nation is made and kept free by laws that protect the rights of the citizen, as well as protecting each citizen’s well-being. The clincher is this: it requires good and moral people to hold these positions so that the system works correctly.

                You are right about this: the government enforces the law by use of force or threat of force. There is no way around that. What good are laws if there is no enforcement of them? Unenforced laws are essentially non-existent.

                You are also right that we are forced to buy the whole bunch of apples, and there are going to be some bad apples in there. There is no way around that. If you think this system is ruined because of a few bad apples, I challenge you to find another type of government system that you would prefer to live under. This system, as it operates as intended is the finest and freest in the world. Yes, it is a shame that there are bad police officers that violate peoples’ rights, and I hope the full weight of the law comes down on them, but to demonize every police officer, or to say that you are not going to respect any of them because of your disdain for a few is ridiculous. This is what the Black Lives Matter movement does when they say the system is “systemically racist.” No, it is not. Show a single racist policy in modern law enforcement, and it can be attacked and changed. Show an officer who commits undeniably racists acts, and he can be disciplined, fired, or jailed for his wrong-doing. If you can’t show either of these, then you can not legitimately claim that the system is “broken” or “racist.” This system, like every other that is staffed by human beings, is going to have some good people and some bad people. We simply have to encourage the good people who do the right thing, and deal with the bad people as necessary.

                “I believe that unless most government functions are privatized, the dishonesty, abuse and graft will always go on, no matter how well any local person tries to fight it.” I disagree with you on this point. How do you propose that the law enforcement system be privatized? Privatization of any industry in a capitalist society (and I am very much a capitalist) causes it to turn into a “for profit” organization. That means that you will have private police forces with no accountability competing to get paid. How do you think that will work out for the average citizen. Do you think we should privatize the military, as well? Then, the military can be bought of by the highest bidder. The issue here is not that law enforcement is a public institution; the issue is that people do not want to be accountable to anyone for breaking the law.

                By the way, the US government is not a socialist endeavor; it was designed to defend a capitalist endeavor. The social programs enacted by the left are the socialist endeavors that lead to corruption, laziness and selfishness at every level of society.

                There will be small scale successes here and there (and your old department may have been such a success), but overall, the government system is a socialist endeavor and as such will always have corruption.

              • Robert, I have never claimed (or thought) that the police are racist. I do not believe that they are. No doubt that there are some white cops that are racist against blacks and no doubt that there are some black cops that are racist against whites. But I have not seen any evidence of institutionalized racism. So, BLM and I are not on the same page… (to put it mildly). Also, I am not demonizing every police officer, I am demonizing the system. The dishonesty and corruption that I am concerned about are, in my opinion, precisely the result of a socialist system. I disagree with you (and with most, I should add) that privatized police will lead to more corruption and ineffectiveness. That is the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist story, and they have been very good over the decades of twisting right and wrong – like the Democratic Republic of North Korea and the term Liberal itself, which, in socialist vernacular, is the opposite of liberty. To prove my point in a short comment space (and to avoid boring most others), I would refer you to such works as Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and, of course, to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” In short, yes, it is possible to reduce the government to a minimum, legitimize it by having local control of most functions that remain with the government, but most importantly, privatize as much as possible. To give an example, if your local police department were to be funded by the local citizens through payments or fees that they had control of, where do you think most cops would spend their time on the clock – giving out traffic tickets or fighting real crime?

                Any government, by definition, is a socialist endeavor. As such, it should be an expressed desire of every citizen to keep the government to the smallest size possible. As the government grows, it creates conditions where people chose to do evil things. You can talk about honesty, you can hold lectures on the subject, but the socialist system is a breeding ground for dishonesty. It just is. When you have control of other people’s money with little accountability, and with an ability to grow and magnify your power at someone else’s expense, few people will have the moral strength to resist the temptation. Worse, those that acquiesce to the evil will surround themselves with more evil and purge the honest ones. Don’t you see that happening in our government? Do you think it is accidental that the only choices out of 350M citizens are the sorry examples that we see? And yet you are buying the propaganda that in order to fix the problems (which the government created), we need more government?!

                As to you point is there are better system elsewhere? Well, look at it this way – you’ve read the responses here. I don’t think that most of the subscribers on this blog are BLM sympathizers or felons. This is probably a cross section of mostly law abiding working people to a greater degree than the general population. Yet, the predominant feeling is that the police are not a friend of the citizen. That is a very sorry state of affairs. They are a friend of the government, and will protect the government, but not the citizen (understandably – the paycheck comes directly from the government, not the citizen – hint, hint…). And, yes, I have been to a country where the cop is considered a friend, not an enemy. That is a much better feeling.

              • “Also, I am not demonizing every police officer, I am demonizing the system.” That is my point. The law enforcement system is not broken. Point to a faulty policy or an issues with the system, if you can find a legitimate one. The issues that people are complaining about here are with corruption on the level of the individual officer. Use of force? Bribery? Planting evidence? Any of these issues, and many more, are issues with individual behavior; not with the system. See my previous post for more on how to distinguish between a systemic issue and an individual behavioral issue.

                The part of your stance that I do not understand is how you believe that the “dishonesty and corruption” are the result of a socialist system. I am certainly not a socialist, but our country is built on laws that defend freedom and capitalism. Yes, the country has become increasingly socialist since then, but what does that have to do with law enforcement? Why would cops be more corrupt and what social program do you believe is causing this? I think you and I have different views of what the “Liberal/Progressive/Socialist” society look like. I agree; there should be less BIG government. By big government, I am referring to the federal government. That is the way the framers of the constitution intended for the government to be. Less at the federal level, other issues at the state level. I also don’t believe that the states should have large local governments, which is why I live in one of the reddest, freest states in the union. I believe that this lack of regulation is the reason why these conservative states have a much better economy than the liberal states do, too.

                Here is why I don’t believe that your idea of privatized law enforcement would work. If a person does not approve of their local law enforcement agency, what will they do? Do they simply stop paying for law enforcement? What happens if they need assistance from the police? They didn’t pay, so are they put on a “Do Not Respond” list? Additionally, what about law breakers (career criminals)? They have no incentive to pay for law enforcement anyway, so they just won’t pay. Or better yet, career criminals could pay MORE for law enforcement so that the private police would look the other way. And where is the oversight? There wouldn’t be any, because that would be too much government, right?

                “Any government, by definition, is a socialist endeavor.” True, but the question is this: what is being socialized? There are some things that we want evenly distributed, such as law and order, national defense, basic human rights, etc. I am with you on keeping the government as small as possible, but it can only shrink to a certain size. If it disappears completely, then there is no basis for law and order, and it because every man for himself, where might makes right.

                “…the socialist system is a breeding ground for dishonesty. It just is.” I don’t think I can logically tie dishonesty to socialism. How do you associate the two? In my mind, dishonesty is an individual behavior that people must be taught not to participate in. I think a person can be an honest socialist. Look at Bernie Sanders; he is straightforward about wanting to redistribute wealth, and I don’t think he is being deceptive about it at all. I will say that I think he is actually a lying capitalist, because shortly after he lost the democratic candidacy to Hillary, he bought himself a $600K house on the lake front… Not very socialist of him to hoard all that wealth… If you think this country has turned into a terrible socialist state, I guess you have to blame the founders for that pesky “constitution” thing. 🙂

                “And yet you are buying the propaganda that in order to fix the problems (which the government created), we need more government?!” At no point in this discussion have I ever advocated MORE government; I am advocating BETTER government. Better people in high places. When a person betrays the public trust, they should be put through the same process that we put every other law breaker through.

                “…the predominant feeling is that the police are not a friend of the citizen. …They are a friend of the government, and will protect the government, but not the citizen (understandably – the paycheck comes directly from the government, not the citizen – hint, hint…).” My question is where do the feelings of these other readers come from? Very few from personal experience, because as you pointed out, most of the readers of this site are nit felons (unless they are reading up on their next gun to steal or buy on the black market). Therefore, the only other place that they could gather information on what the police are doing to violate the rights of the common citizen is from your friend (again, joking) George Soros. The media is pushing the narrative that American policing is out of control, when it is not. They capitalize on the acts of the few bad apples that do not accurately represent what the average street cop does, or the ideologies that the average street cop holds. Additionally, the police receive their paycheck from the citizen!! In this country, the local police officer receives his paycheck from the municipality that he serves, and that money comes from… you guessed it, the public that is paying for emergency services. Contrary to the idea that George Soros is championing, the average cop does care about citizens, and wants to put crooks in jail. This is their highest calling. Yes, there are cops that are tasked with writing tickets, writing reports, directing traffic, and every other law enforcement responsibility under the sun, but the vast majority of them are on general patrol to try and stop crime and help people. and most of them, regardless of their assignment, really like interacting with people in positive ways. They don’t get a kick out of writing people needless tickets, arresting or shooting “innocent” people, etc.

                “And, yes, I have been to a country where the cop is considered a friend, not an enemy. That is a much better feeling.” What country was this, and how was there justice system significantly different from ours? Was this a more or less socialist society than our own?

              • “And, yes, I have been to a country where the cop is considered a friend, not an enemy. That is a much better feeling.” What country was this, and how was there justice system significantly different from ours? Was this a more or less socialist society than our own?” — Surprisingly, it is an even more socialist country than the US – Israel. But it may be due to the much smaller size and the fact that it is always fighting for the common survival, with any war lost that will be the last war to be fought for the entire country. In any case, the cops there are part of the population and exist and act to help the citizen, not to prey on him. I suppose that one has to experience the difference to truly understand it; my rhetoric skills are insufficient to describe it properly. Robert, from my observation of your views, I believe that you desire honesty and justice, but in a Puritanical version. If everyone were to put on a straight jacket and button it up themselves, there would be no unpleasant interactions with the police. Just as with free speech, protecting something that is not offensive is not difficult; protecting offensive speech, or protecting behavior that you don’t like – that’s the test of liberty. In case of Roymond’s many run-ins with the cops, I can see a pattern – the cops expect obedience to their persona (veiled in obedience to their badge), while Roymond does not wish to drop on one knee to acknowledge that. So, it comes down to what we want to consider as Liberty and how much of it are we willing to trade for Law and Order.

              • “Surprisingly, it is an even more socialist country than the US – Israel. But it may be due to the much smaller size and the fact that it is always fighting for the common survival, with any war lost that will be the last war to be fought for the entire country.” I agree with you on you observation, Alex. If we had police walking our streets like Israel does who toted submachine guns, I think the some people would lose their minds over the “militarization of the police.” I am not saying that is necessary here, by the way. I think the reason why police over there are probably more friendly is for a few reasons. I think you hit the number one reason on the head; they have bigger concerns than illegal fireworks or public nudity. They are more concerned with terror attacks and war, and there main goal is to protect themselves and their countrymen from those threats.

                “In any case, the cops there are part of the population and exist and act to help the citizen, not to prey on him.” I am sure that is the case there, as well as here. I don’t think that cops in our society have a mentality that they are trying to arrest people and stick them with tickets as much as they believe that they want to protect society from criminals. Writing tickets and enforcing minor laws just comes with the territory. Just because a cop is vigilantly watching for violations of law and intervening, I would not call that “preying on citizens.” Yeah, no one likes a ticket, but when the public starts to outcry about the legitimate enforcement of legitimate law, it makes my head spin. I am sure you have seen some of the families of these criminals on the news who have been caught in the act of burglarizing a home, and the family says something along the lines of, “What was he supposed to do? How’s he supposed to get money for food and clothes and stuff?” In my mind, a violation of law is a violation of law; plain and simple. Now, if we think that a law is unjust, let’s try to get the law changed. I know that is not easy; but that is the system that is in place.

                “If everyone were to put on a straight jacket and button it up themselves, there would be no unpleasant interactions with the police.” I am not advocating that anyone bow down to the police. I am just advocating not to challenge their authority while they are enforcing the law, because in doing so, a person will more than likely violating a law. If a cop demands that you give him your ice cream, I am not saying to comply with him, as that is obviously not a command with regard to a law. However, if an officer tells me to put my hands up or to lay down on the ground, I am going to do it without asking any questions. When everything is over, I will ask for an explanation, but in the moment, I am going to trust that the officer has my best interests in mind. If we believe that an officer is violating the law or doing some thing that is not right, as long as it is not going to result in immediate harm to another person, the best way to right the situation is to report the cop to his supervisors, write a letter to the mayor, the chief of police, internal affairs; something along those lines. Resisting a cop on the street because we disagree with his observations or non-life-threatening actions is a surefire way to end up being arrested legitimately, if things don’t escalate beyond that point!

                “Just as with free speech, protecting something that is not offensive is not difficult; protecting offensive speech, or protecting behavior that you don’t like – that’s the test of liberty.” That is well said, Alex. I completely agree.

                “In case of Roymond’s many run-ins with the cops, I can see a pattern – the cops expect obedience to their persona (veiled in obedience to their badge), while Roymond does not wish to drop on one knee to acknowledge that. So, it comes down to what we want to consider as Liberty and how much of it are we willing to trade for Law and Order.” Yeah, I understand where you and Roymond are coming from, in that it seems like a petty law to prohibit people from possessing fireworks. We have that law where I live, as well, but just outside the city, there are fireworks vendors, so every holiday, our courts end up trying many cases for possession of illegal fireworks. Do I think the law is a bit petty? Yes. Do I understand the validity of the law (public safety)? Yes. Would I go to war over my right to own fireworks? No. If we were talking about one of our constitutionally protected rights, I would certainly fight for it, but since I find the law to be fairly reasonable, I am not worried about it. You sure won’t find me carting around any fireworks in the city limits, though!

                Like I told Roymond, I consider my self a constitutionalist. I think the difference between a “constitutionalist” and a “libertarian” is that a constitutionalist believes that the rights that were are granted in the constitution should be guaranteed to all citizens, and that they shouldn’t be infringed upon. Roymond is probably more of a libertarian, who thinks that he should have total, unadulterated freedom to do whatever he desires. I don’t think that view is compatible with the constitution, myself, but he is certainly free to desire that!

              • As a first-line police supervisor I had to handle minor complaints about my officers, petty things like “I didn’t like his attitude”, “He/she was rude to me”, etc. I would assure the person complaining that I would look into the matter and take corrective action if warranted. I’d meet the officer, discuss the complaint, and do a bit of counseling if the officer admitted to being a bit “out of bounds”. So help me, one day a woman called in to complain about the way one of my cops LOOKED AT HER. “He looked at me like I was the lowest thing on the face of this Earth!” Now, a supervisor can’t play favorites but he can’t help but have favorites – and this particular officer was one of mine. He was a black guy born in Panama who had gotten his U.S. citizenship serving in the USMC and both he and his brother had joined the department together. He was sharp as a tack both in his appearance and in his work, utterly dependable to do his job the it should be done and I told him he was going the be the Chief of Police someday. And yes, he DID have a disdainful look which was absolutely withering when someone was behaving like a goof. I’ve not the least doubt that over the course of his advancing up the rank ladder as a supervisor and then commander a lot of cops got “The Look”, especially when he DID become Chief of Police.

              • “I don’t think that cops in our society have a mentality that they are trying to arrest people and stick them with tickets as much as they believe that they want to protect society from criminals. Writing tickets and enforcing minor laws just comes with the territory.” — Robert, do you really think that stalking / preying on / “enforcing” the speeding laws (and hiding to pounce upon) is the primary function that the citizens pay their police force to perform? I live in a rural area where the majority of the police force are employed to perform the above mentioned functions for most of their shift. Sorry, as a citizen, that is not what I pay the police to do. Oh, I forgot, no one asked me where and on what my money is being spent on.

                Here’s another example of the wrong priorities – this is from my teenage years in NYC. I remember observing a couple of car thieves drive up a stolen car into a neighborhood and starting to rip it apart. Within minutes a patrol car drove by, the cops clearly realizing that a stolen car was being dismantled. Instead of preventing the crime from proceeding and saving 99% of the vehicle at that point, they proceeded to make rounds, driving up every few minutes, hoping to catch the criminals. The criminals were not that stupid, as they had others posted on the corners who would give warnings of the approaching cruiser. Within a half hour, the cops made several drive-by’s, with the car being progressively dismantled, until only the shell remained. No arrests were made and the car owners lost the car. Did the cops do a good job that they should be respected for?

              • As it sometimes says on the package, “Individual results may vary”. While you can’t expect EVERY encounter with the police to go well, you can bet that your attitude and demeanor will have a lot to do with the cop’s interaction with you. As statistical fact, given the literally millions of police/citizen encounters annually, a surprisingly low number result in dissatisfaction on the part of the citizen. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394249/dojs-policing-statistics-dont-lie-ian-tuttle

              • “Robert, do you really think that stalking / preying on / “enforcing” the speeding laws (and hiding to pounce upon) is the primary function that the citizens pay their police force to perform?” No, like you know from reading my previous post, I don’t think that it is their primary job, but it comes with the territory of enforcing the law. All laws must be enforced; not just the ones that you or I don’t break. “I live in a rural area where the majority of the police force are employed to perform the above mentioned functions for most of their shift.” Well, in a rural area, I am sure that these same cops you are talking about don’t have a problem with gang-related shootings, auto thefts, rapes, and murders happening frequently, so what do you want them to do? Sit at the donut shop while collecting your tax dollars? At least when they are out on the road writing a ticket, they are doing their job. If any other job class operated on a “that’s not my primary job so I’m not dealing with it” attitude, everyone would be completely ticked. “Sorry, as a citizen, that is not what I pay the police to do. Oh, I forgot, no one asked me where and on what my money is being spent on.” That is the purpose of voting for candidates that run on a platform that you support. The elected officials have a huge amount of sway over the objectives and operations of law enforcement, and we sway the elected officials by our votes.

                Your example of the cops is NYC is a great example of some cops that were not doing a great job at doing their actual job, but because you didn’t approve of what they did, and because you don’t like ticket-writing cops, the system is broken? I disagree. I said early on that a few bad apples are going to exist in every part of society. That doesn’t mean that a system is broken. That means that some people are better or worse than others, regardless of what job they perform.

              • I once worked out of a station in a primarily rural area of the county after being transferred from one of our stations which bordered D.C. I don’t think I had a call for service for the first two weeks I was there and I was going NUTS from boredom. Cops are action-oriented individuals, adrenaline junkies if you will, and working traffic was about all there was to DO, especially at night.and in the wee small hours of the morning after the bars had closed. It took awhile to get accustomed to having the country folks wave to you with their entire hand instead of just the middle finger.

                As much as people complain about traffic enforcement, an awful lot of people are killed and injured by vehicles in these United States, 38,300 deaths and 4,400,000 serious injuries in 2015, a figure which far outstrips the number of people injured by the negligent handling of firearms. Although they are called “accidents”, both are usually caused by the same thing: carelessness. I figured that if I gave somebody a traffic citation for something boneheaded behind the wheel, the next time he started to do it he just might say to himself, “Oops! The last time I did that it cost me a big chunk of cash” – and then he wouldn’t do it.

                We got a lot of complaints about speeders in residential neighborhoods, many of them submitting petitions to get us to step up enforcement. We would set up radar and start gunning them down and issuing citations for exceeding the posted speed limit, usually 25 mph on residential streets. Then we’d compare the names on the citations to the ones on the petitions and guess what? Yep. Be careful what you wish for because you just may get it …..

              • “Then we’d compare the names on the citations to the ones on the petitions and guess what? Yep. Be careful what you wish for because you just may get it …..” — This is absolutely amazing about some people – just like getting into an HOA – they’re willing to be dictated by any and all just so that they can feel like a king once or twice by telling others how high their grass needs to be. No, humans are not ready for Liberty, at least most of them are not.

              • “The elected officials have a huge amount of sway over the objectives and operations of law enforcement, and we sway the elected officials by our votes.” — Don’t even get me started on the virtues of our electoral process and the dumb-ass sheeple that vote based on what CNN tells them to beaah! Not widely advertised to the public, but no doubt the statistics exist just how much it costs to have so many idiots vote for this or that candidate. And if there are insufficient live votes, they can be made up with the dead ones. Oh, in case you still believe in our system and the voting process and want proof, here it is — in the last presidential election, a district in Ohio voted 140% for Obama; in Philadelphia, the vote was 110%! You know, even in the former Soviet Union, the Party had enough respect for their slaves, er, I meant citizens, that the vote was always between 95 and 98%. Here, the sheeple are so stupid that 140% works, too. (No doubt Common Core helped with the math here).

              • “Don’t even get me started on the virtues of our electoral process and the dumb-ass sheeple that vote based on what CNN tells them to beaah!” Oh, don’t worry; I completely agree with you about this, Alex. Part of the problem is that the electorate no longer cares what is truly going on behind the scenes with our politicians and media. This is why a guy like George Soros genuinely runs this country (through media manipulation), but most of the public is mad at Obama and Hillary. Don’t get me wrong; Obama and Hillary are scum-balls, and they are dismantling the constitution one step at a time, but how did they get into the White House to begin with? First, through media manipulation, and secondly, through voter fraud. That is one of the reasons that I disagree with you about the privatization of public entities. The media can broadcast whatever it wants, and it broadcasts whatever George Soros wants it to; that’s why he owns and pays for it. He has his own private platform from which to indoctrinate an entire country. Given, if a corrupt government takes control of the media, that would give the corrupt officials there own platform as well. This is why, as the founders, stated, that this government that they created requires a moral and religious people to operate correctly.

                “And if there are insufficient live votes, they can be made up with the dead ones.” No doubt about that; we know that at least since the 2008 election (with the ACORN scandal), there has been plenty of voter fraud, primarily on the left, to manipulate the political process. I’ll raise this point again: who is responsible for this coordinated effort to manipulate the vote? Whoever it is, are they not essentially buying the vote? This is happening in our government because the vast majority of our politicians are not “moral and religious,” and therefore, they are completely for sale. I suspect that if we were to look at the income of just about every one of our senators and representatives on the federal level, we would be shocked at how much money they take in from sources that have an “interest” in there political stance. This is why we have so many millionaire politicians at the federal level.

                “…in the last presidential election, a district in Ohio voted 140% for Obama; in Philadelphia, the vote was 110%!” I have seen these statistics before, but objective sources, such as Snopes and Politifact, have verified that they are falsely skewed. There is no county in Ohio or Philadelphia where they received more votes than they had registered voters. That does not mean that voter fraud was not occurring; there are many ways to commit voter fraud. However, even if there is voter fraud being committed in the general election, that is more of an implication of federal corruption; not local corruption, so let’s bring it full circle. How does this apply to the local street cop? We have not seen much evidence of local-level voter fraud, but maybe that is because there is less oversight on “lesser” elections. In any case, what would the benefit be of voter fraud at the local level? There is much less control over national direction, federal legislation, and constitutional verification at that level. Would someone do it just to manipulate whether police officers write more tickets, invest more in the D.A.R.E. program, or do more thorough homicide investigations? I doubt that.

                To me, majority of our problems are on the federal end. Do you believe that we should close our borders and enforce our immigration laws? I do. Do you believe that we should lift all of our restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? I do. Do you think that we need to address the issue of how political correctness is destroying the right of the people to freedom of speech and religion? I do. The problem in our country begins corrupt politicians and media, and ends with an ill-informed people or a people that wants to change this country to something that is was never intended to be. The application of that looks like what we are seeing now. My point is this: everybody is critical of the local police, who are enforcing the local law. Yes, they write tickets. Yes, do field sobriety tests. Yes, they have to deal with the entire law, from the felonious criminal investigations all the way down to the guy who throws his cigarette butt out of the window. No one likes it when the law is enforced upon them. However, I am sure that you, and even Roymond, would agree that our immigration laws need to be enforced, correct? You would agree that the 2nd Amendment should be respected correct? You would agree that people’s rights to freedom of speech and religion should be protected, correct? All of these tasks are dependent on the enforcement of law. In a system of law, if it is going to be enforced fairly, you can’t pick and choose which laws are enforced. You must enforce all laws equally for the system to work correctly; hence the saying, “Justice is blind.” If you believe that our federal government is out of control, you could fairly say that it is because there is no “policing” of the federal government. It is because we have local-level policing that more of our local level laws are enforced, and yet our federal government runs un-policed, and people like Hillary who are caught red-handed can just claim “I don’t recall” and walk away with blood on her hands.

                Yes, I am for the enforcement of law. That is what a good government is based on. If there is no enforcement of law, then what is the purpose of having laws? What is the purposed of having a constitution that protects our rights if it is not enforced? What is the purposed of having immigration laws if they are not enforced? Yes, there are enforcers within any agency that may violate the law; and when they do, they are now a criminal, and should be prosecuted by the enforcers that they are accountable to. Ultimately, if the federal government becomes tyrannical, who is accountable to? We, the people. That is the way the system was designed from the beginning; it was not designed so that individuals that are legitimately accused of littering, public nudity, illegal possession of fireworks, or even murders, could start claiming that the “broken system” needs to be abolished. It was designed so that there are various levels of oversight from the local government up through the federal government, and when the federal oversight fails, the fed is ultimately accountable to us.

              • Robert, law enforcement is already a for-profit system, and will be so long as they can seize cash at will and not return it even if charges are dismissed (or no even made), so long as they can seize property and keep the proceeds, so long as they can issue fines and keep the money.

                But it’s a for-profit system that doesn’t depend on customer satisfaction, so it isn’t subject to market forces. It’s not a system of free choice, but of plunder.

            • So in your book, Robert, when I am arrested for violating a law that doesn’t exist and the judge reprimands the officer for persecuting a citizen, I should have just gone along with the cop.

              I was arrested once for possession of illegal fireworks when what I was doing was picking up litter off the beach, and in that litter were the remnants of fireworks that had plainly been washed by the tide. The judge threw it out. I was arrested once for public nudity despite the fact that the state Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that public nudity falls under freedom of expression; the cop was reprimanded by the judge. I was arrested once for vagrancy (I was traveling and living out of my truck) and the judge said it should never have come before him.

              Each of those is an example of cops just going for the points they get for arresting people. It doesn’t matter if the cases are thrown out; they still get points for making the arrests. The one judge called it “persecuting citizens”, and that’s a perfectly accurate description.

              And since the departments don’t stop such behavior, and since the other officers go along with it, then by definition they are all rotten. That’s not projection, it’s reality: it is the job of the guardians to guard against all wrongdoing, and that includes by other guardians. If they do not do so, they are just as corrupt.

              Your assumption that only lawbreakers get arrested is both naive and dangerous — it is why so many innocent people take plea bargains and no one complains.

              This country once believed that it is better for a hundred, even a thousand guilty to walk free than one innocent be punished. Those with your attitude have destroyed that essential element of liberty.

              • Roymond, the more you type, the more that I understand that it is you and your ilk that support the current administration and the damage that they do to this country. Let me break this down so that you can understand it.

                “So in your book when I am arrested for violating a law that doesn’t exist and the judge reprimands the officer for persecuting a citizen, I should have just gone along with the cop.” No, I didn’t say that. Here are the facts: if the officer arrested you for a law that didn’t exist, how did he put you in jail? On a charge of “I don’t like this guy?” Sorry, but the system doesn’t work like that. If the law didn’t exist, why did the prosecutor take you to court? Because he thought he could defend the officer on the charge of “I don’t like this guy?” And further more, just because a judge disagrees with the cops evaluation of the scene, it doesn’t make the cop wrong, it just means that the judge disagrees, and he has the authority to overrule the cop. That’s the beauty of the checks and balances in this horrible system that oppresses you.

                So first, you were arrested by some cop who took you in based on the fact that you were in possession of fireworks because he saw you in possession of the hulls of some fireworks that he reasonably assumed you had been shooting off. The cop probably looked at the totality of the circumstance and made a reasonable call that the preponderance of the evidence pointed to you being in possession of fireworks. The judge found that he disagreed with what the officer did, and he released you.

                Next, you were arrested for public nudity. Obviously, there is a local ordinance about public nudity under which you were arrested. Same case as before; obviously, the cop arrested you under a law against public nudity, indecent exposure, etc., and the prosecutor felt the charge was legitimate, so the prosecutor took the case to court. Again, this horribly oppressive system came to your defense with a judge that overruled the cop.

                Then, you were arrested for something related to vagrancy. Same story again. The cop arrested you and the judge disagreed, and released you. This horribly oppressive system’s checks and balances came through again!

                There are two things that have given me an impression of your community from your take on your experiences. Based on the judge’s reaction, you live in a “more progressive” community. That is fairly clear from the judges’ behaviors and from your statements and claims about what happened and how it was resolved. As far as your take on how the system works, your own claims of how things happened have proven that your subjective assumptions are factually wrong, without a doubt. Obviously, the cop and prosecutor were in agreement that a violation of law had occurred. The judge’s disagreement does not diminish that. And now that I see that your arguments are based on faulty assumptions about the system associated with your subjective experiences, I know where your true arguments are coming from: you feel that the cops shouldn’t have held you accountable for breaking the law. The cops simply enforce the law, and of course, when you become the object of their attention, you don’t like that. However, in your same community, if the cops were to ignore the same level of evidence in a murder case, an assault, a burglary, etc., you would be jumping up and down about how they didn’t do their due diligence. If they don’t exercise due diligence on the small stuff, why would expect them to exercise due diligence on the bigger, more important stuff?

                Aside from that, if these are the best examples of police overreach that you could come up with, these are borderline at best. These do not implicate any corruption on the side of the cops; they are closer to a weak case against you. On top of that, what “points” do you think a cop gets for arresting people? That is a comical idea. If people get in an uproar about the idea of ticket quotas (reasonably so), what do you think would happen if police officers were rewarded on the basis of how many people they arrested? Of course, you have no evidence of this occurring; it is just another assumption to perpetuate a faulty view of police.

                “And since the departments don’t stop such behavior, and since the other officers go along with it, then by definition they are all rotten.” Don’t stop what behavior? Enforcement of the law? That is the point of LAW ENFORCEMENT. Try to look past the fact that you are mad about being legitimately arrested. The cops were doing there job. On top of that, the part that you don’t realize is that part of what these cops probably used to determine whether you had really committed an offense in these circumstances was your demeanor. When you are militantly anti-police, don’t you think that the cops assume that you are that way because you broke the law? I probably would if I were a cop. Try showing them some respect and compliance, and you probably would have walked away from 2 of your 3 arrests.

                “Your assumption that only lawbreakers get arrested is both naive and dangerous — it is why so many innocent people take plea bargains and no one complains.” You are making two incorrect assumptions here. First, I never said that only lawbreakers get arrested, but I believe that in the VAST majority of cases, the system works. My brother was arrested once when he was speeding on his motorcycle because the cops thought he was evading arrest. My brother couldn’t believe it, and he was completely apologetic, telling them that he did not realize that they were trying to pull him over. They still book him in jail, but eventually (probably because of his humility and apologies), they were convinced that maybe he was not evading arrest after all (which was a felony offense), and they downgraded his charge to speeding. He was still guilty, and he paid his fine, but he agreed that under the circumstances, he could totally understand why they did what they did. Years later, he went on to become a police officer, and he is one of the nicest guys you would ever want to meet.; he was before he was a cop, and he is still the nicest guy even after getting his badge.

                Secondly, you made the statement that “my assumption” was that only lawbreakers go to jail and that is why “so many innocent people take plea-bargains and no one complains.” The first issue with that statement is that it does not logically follow; even if that was my assumption, which it was not, how does that force people to accept plea-bargains? Faulty assumption. Additionally, why accept a plea bargain if you are not guilty? The purpose of a plea bargain is two-fold: 1) to give a lighter sentence to someone who admits guilt, and 2) to reduce the amount of work that the prosecutor has to do on a case where the defendants owns up to his criminal actions. If you accept a plea bargain when you are not guilty, that is completely your decision. Don’t try to blame anyone else for that. If you chose to do that, you and you alone made the bad choice to admit guilt when you where not guilty. That’s on you.

                The funny part is a guy like you sounds like a totally emotionally out-of-control angry person who can’t see past his own personal feelings and agenda. If cops were like you, I probably wouldn’t like them either.

                “This country once believed that it is better for a hundred, even a thousand guilty to walk free than one innocent be punished. Those with your attitude have destroyed that essential element of liberty.” This country never believed that. Do you honestly believe that it is better for 1 thousand murdering rapists to walk free than for you to be jailed for possession of illegal fireworks? If you do, that is yet another reason that I am glad that you are not a cop. This country, from its inception, has defended the right of due process for everyone, and it has set the precedent that the exercise of the law should be reasonable. If you read the Bill of Rights, it does not bar the enforcement of the law; it limits it to what is REASONABLE. Contrary to your beliefs, it is people with your ideologies (Obama, Hillary, etc.) who feel that they should not have to be accountable to anyone that are making this country a third-world style abomination (Obama-nation?). That is why no one will be honest in this country any more. They feel that everyone’s personal experiences and feelings are more important than facts, law, and order.

              • Robert,you are so far out on fantasy land you can’t even recognize an advocate of liberty.

                If the cop had so much as glanced at the fireworks, he would have seen they had plainly been washed by the tide at least once. He wasn’t interested in evidence, or probable cause, he was interested in getting points for making an arrest. By your reasoning, a cop who saw a kid with a short white pencil behind his ear would have probable cause for an arrest for minor in possession of a tobacco product. Probable cause requires actually opening ones eyes and seeing if there’s really any evidence, not just jumping to a conclusion and ignoring the actual evidence. It’s noteworthy that he didn’t even bother collecting any of the alleged fireworks — proof that he didn’t really care if his arrest was legit.

                Cops do this regularly in the counties around here; they don’t care if facts fit, they just write down a law they want to apply, whether it actually does, or whether it actually exists (e.g. another guy who got arrested for “indecent exposure” when there is no such law on the books. Or they arrest and then decide what the charge is and invent the evidence or testimony.

                And no, there was no local ordinance against nudity — there can’t be; it’s unconstitutional in the state. It turned out that this cop also gave out citations for “illegal excavation” when kids playing at the beach dug holes in the sand bigger than he approved of, and warnings for “illegal use of state resources” for building dams in creeks on the beach, as well as tickets for “performing mechanical work on a vehicle on a public thoroughfare” when a parked car’s hood is left up — regardless of whether there were any parts or tools in evidence.

                As for vagrancy, staying in one’s vehicle when traveling does not constitute vagrancy, nor does staying in one place for two nights in a row.

                You’re missing the fact that the judges told the cops flat out that their arrests were wrong, that there was no law against what I was doing.

                As for the prosecutors involved, they don’t care whether there was an actual violation, they care about piling up arrests and prosecutions. The public defender — a public official — in one case told me it is a constant pain to his office to have to waste time showing up in court merely to explain to the judge that no law was violated, that there was no probable cause.

                What it comes down to is that I never broke the law, and the judges both said so and rebuked the officers for abusing their authority by making arrests that didn’t fit the law. So your whine that I’m just unhappy about getting dinged for breaking the law is false — that’s your fantasy, the kind I’ve come to expect from supporters of a police state. These aren’t examples of cops doing their jobs, or the judges wouldn’t have rebuked them.

                Why accept a plea bargain if you’re not guilty? Because people know how often the innocent get convicted. They also know that if they sit in jail waiting for a trial, their lives will be ruined permanently. They also accept plea bargains because otherwise prosecutors inflate the charges with every last item they can think of to apply, so there is no justice from going to trial. The real function of plea bargains in today’s court isn’t to get lighter sentences, it’s to run up a conviction record to show being “tough on crime”.

                The saying “Better a hundred guilty walk free than one innocent be punished” was a standard maxim at the time of the Founders. Jefferson once wrote it as “Better a thousand guilty walk free”. Why? Because to punish one innocent person is so vile that it is better that NO ONE be punished at all than that it happen ever! To punish a single innocent person is an inherent denial of liberty, and to accept it is to approve of tyranny.

                As for Obama and Hillary, they are firm supporters of a police state where there is no accountability for police. They have no place in America, because they have no clue what liberty is. They do not understand that it would be far, far better to eliminate all police and let justice be carried out where it is most accurate: at the hands of the intended victims. Better not just a well-armed citizenry but a fully armed citizenry aware of their personal responsibility.

              • Roymond, you are not advocating liberty; you are advocating anarchy. That is the end result of a land without laws and accountability. What I am advocating is a constitutional society. Of course, in a society where everyone follows the law, advocates morality and looks out for the well-being of their neighbor as well as themselves, these issues would be non-existent. That kind of society cannot exist perfectly in this world, because people like yourself like to break the law in the name of “pushing the bounds of liberty.” When you look at the constitution, everything was written so that a “reasonable and prudent person’s” actions would be protected; not some social justice warrior who cares about no one else’s rights but his own.

                Roymond, I am fairly certain that I have correctly surmised your ideology. You are drawing faulty “parallels” to craft support a faulty narrative. A cop catches you with the remains of firework on a beach after fireworks went off, and you don’t think it was reasonable for him to assume that you were cleaning up your own garbage, thus implicating you as having been in possession of fireworks? If you disagree, You are not a reasonable or prudent person. Of course, you tell the cop, these aren’t my fireworks, I am just carrying them around. The cop doesn’t believe you; likely because he has heard that story before. Again, a completely reasonable assumption on the part of the cop, given that many people try to lie their way out of tickets for offenses like these; similar to the whole “these aren’t my pants” defense. Somehow, you think that is similar to a cop arresting or citing a child with his white pencil behind his ear for possession of a tobacco product? That is such a ridiculously faulty parallel that I literally had to laugh at your hard-headedness. You are not even trying to be reasonable. You are trying to carefully craft your story to make you look like the poor social-justice-warrior-hero-victim, and the cop look like some insane, power-hungry tyrant, when really, the cop just looks like a cop doing his job. Nice try.

                Like I explained to you in a previous post, the judge can disagree with the cop’s assessment of the situation, but that doesn’t mean that what the cop did was unlawful or improper; it simply means that the cop did not sufficiently prove his case. Again, that is the great thing about our constitutional law system. Quit crying already!

                “Probable cause requires actually opening ones eyes and seeing if there’s really any evidence, not just jumping to a conclusion and ignoring the actual evidence.” This is a great point. So, the cop finds you in possession of fireworks, and yet, there was no probably cause to believe you were in possession of fireworks, right? On the flip side of the coin, you have no evidence to back your belief that the cop was abusing his authority (you were holding the convicting evidence in your hands), and yet, the cop was just abusing his authority! Look at the double-standard you are holding: you can be caught with the evidence of a crime in your hands and you MUST be assumed to be not guilty by the cop; but the cop does his job according to the law and the whole system is TOTALLY CORRUPT! You need to seriously check your worldview man. Being this mentally inconsistent must really make it challenging to live life.

                “Cops do this regularly in the counties around here; they don’t care if facts fit, they just write down a law they want to apply, whether it actually does, or whether it actually exists.” I am not saying this does not go one at all, but I am saying that no one would know it from looking at the facts of your interaction with the police. They were justified in all three of the cases that your spoke about!! What county and state do you live in? I am fairly sure I can look up your state’s penal code and your municipality’s local ordinances and quickly find the laws under which you were arrested, but you are going to sit and tell me that there are no legitimate laws against any of the things the cops accused you of? I looked up the law where I live, and I found multiple ordinances barring all of the things that you were arrest for. Get over yourself, man. You have to be able to admit when you break the law. Even if the judge throws out the case, it doesn’t mean you are justified; it just means that the case fell apart. Did O.J. murder his wife? Well, he got off on a technicality, so I guess not!

                “…another guy who got arrested for “indecent exposure” when there is no such law on the books. Or they arrest and then decide what the charge is and invent the evidence or testimony.” What evidence did you have to back up this claim? Oh, that’s right; the same evidence as your other claims: NONE.

                The more of your posts I read, I can tell that you are the type of guy who likes to do things that draw the attention of the cops due to a possible breach of law, and then when they confront you to see what’s going on, you stand there screaming, “I don’t have to talk to you! I know my rights!” People like you hide your lack of patriotism and public service under the guise of “liberty.” Like I told you before: without law, there is no liberty. It is the law that empowers the police, and it is also the law that restrains them. It is the law that affords you your freedoms, and it is the law the prohibits your actions. Accept it. It is a transcendent fact that will follow you everywhere you go for the rest of your life.

                It is funny to me how you sit here and ramble of these laws and how you didn’t break any of them. You were COMPLETELY innocent every, single time! I seriously doubt that. That is one thing I love about the body cameras that they are putting on all of these cops these days. Majority of the time, guys like you come along screaming about the injustice that you suffered at the hands of some abusive tyrannical cop, only to have the video vindicate the cops. Those little ol’ bodycams must be SYSTEMICALLY CORRUPT! Quit making up all that evidence, camera!

                “As for the prosecutors involved, they don’t care whether there was an actual violation, they care about piling up arrests and prosecutions.” Not true. What you don’t know about prosecution, I will teach you. To prosecute a case, the prosecutor must try to prove that the elements of a crime have been committed. If there is no law in existence under which you have been arrested, the prosecution would have to dismiss the case before it ever made it to court, because it would be impossible to prosecute without any elements of the offense to prove. This just goes to show that you are either SEVERELY mistaken about what happened when you went to court, or you are making up some fun stories to back up your faulty views.

                “What it comes down to is that I never broke the law…” Yeah, you did. By your own admission. What were you carrying on the beach? Fireworks. What is the law that you were arrested under? Possession of illegal fireworks. Are fireworks illegal where you were found to be in possession of them? Obviously. Well, that means you broke the law. Again, tell me were when you were arrested, and I will find the ordinance/laws you were arrested under. But then again, we both know that this is not about you being enlightened and figuring out that if you would just follow the law, you would have no issue with the police. There are no laws that they have enforced upon you that violated any of your constitutional rights, because if they did, I am sure you would have sued every agency involved and would be living out the rest of your life with a sweet nest egg.

                “So your whine that I’m just unhappy about getting dinged for breaking the law is false…” No, it’s not. Now quit crying. Seriously.

                “…that’s your fantasy, the kind I’ve come to expect from supporters of a police state.” First of all, I am much more of a constitutionalist than you, and if you call a constitutional society “a police state,” then I feel bad for you. Go ahead and move to Mexico and enjoy your brand of freedom.

                “Why accept a plea bargain if you’re not guilty? Because people know how often the innocent get convicted.” That’s a lie. Again, I throw O.J. Simpson out there for your viewing pleasure. There are many more people that beat the system than are convicted. YOU ARE LIVING PROOF OF THAT. You violated the law and were arrested several times, and due to a lack of supporting evidence, you were released. “They also know that if they sit in jail waiting for a trial, their lives will be ruined permanently.” Yeah, you will never get back all those years that you waited to go to trial on your cases, will you. Oh, wait… That’s right, you didn’t, because of your constitutional right to a speedy trial. Man, confound this corrupt system!!! “They also accept plea bargains because otherwise prosecutors inflate the charges with every last item they can think of to apply, so there is no justice from going to trial.” Again, like I already informed you: each charge that the prosecution puts on a person is a charge for which they must prove each element of the crime during trial. For that reason, prosecutors do not just through a bunch of unrelated, false charges on people. This conversation would be a lot more productive if you actually knew what you were talking about. “ The real function of plea bargains in today’s court isn’t to get lighter sentences, it’s to run up a conviction record to show being ‘tough on crime’.” Yeah, because when people ask how tough on crime they are, they can tell them that they are super tough; they arrested a pyrotechnics maniac, a streaker, and a vagrant… and they were all the same man!!

                “The saying ‘Better a hundred guilty walk free than one innocent be punished’ was a standard maxim at the time of the Founders. Jefferson once wrote it as ‘Better a thousand guilty walk free’.” Actually, Jefferson never wrote that. It was first written by William Blackstone, who first stated “better 10 men…”, and repeated (though increased by a factor of 10) by Benjamin Franklin. This fact, like all of the rest of your facts, is not actually true.

                “Because to punish one innocent person is so vile that it is better that NO ONE be punished at all than that it happen ever!” Don’t kid yourself. Life is unfair, and bad things happen to good people all the time. I guess we should just get rid of laws, because occasionally, some radar cop is going to write the wrong guy a ticket. Yes, some people have been horribly wronged by the system, but you are definitely NOT one of them. “To punish a single innocent person is an inherent denial of liberty, and to accept it is to approve of tyranny.” So what is it when we let every law-breaker run amok and oppress the innocent? That is the denial of justice to the victims. So you would rather let the oppressive law breakers oppress people just so you don’t have to worry about cops as you walk around nude while launching fireworks out of the back of your house/truck?

                “As for Obama and Hillary, they are firm supporters of a police state where there is no accountability for police.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This just shows your ignorance of the system! Obama and Hillary are inciting violence toward the police, and spurring a racial divide in this country! That have nothing but contempt for the police! For Pete’s sake, Roymond, watch the news occasionally!

                “ They have no place in America, because they have no clue what liberty is.” On this, I actually agree with you. “They do not understand that it would be far, far better to eliminate all police and let justice be carried out where it is most accurate: at the hands of the intended victims.” Oh, ok, so might makes right? This is the same system that is currently in place in Mexico, Roymond. A system where cartel’s start enforcing there law on the citizenry because of lack of a law enforcement system that is strong enough to protect the people. “ Better not just a well-armed citizenry but a fully armed citizenry aware of their personal responsibility.” I am with you on this again. I don’t think the federal government should regulate firearms at all; automatics, silencers, etc. The NFA is nothing but an anti-constitutional institution that infringes on the second amendment rights of the citizenry. However, when the founders established the second amendment, it was not to enforce the law on each other; it was to keep the government (particularly the FEDERAL government) in check.

                I think that you are not going to be able to look at your circumstances objectively. Those cops didn’t violate your civil rights. More of your civil rights are currently being violated by the federal government that those cops could ever have hoped to violate.

              • Chiming in on this discussion, I am somewhat surprised why no one here seems to be paying attention to the big picture – what happened to liberty in this country if a person can get arrested for possessing fireworks?

              • Like I said before: without law, there is no liberty. Many large municipalities have laws like this in place so that some nut case can’t launch fireworks in a heavily populate area and catch a bunch of homes on fire or injure people. I know what you are thinking. “Would anyone really do that?” At some point, someone did something so reckless that a law was made to deal with the issue. In the case of Roymond, in his municipality, the police probably had the option of citing him or arresting him. I can only guess why they chose to arrest him.

                That is the thing about freedom. Freedom requires responsibility. When people don’t act responsible, the collective begins expanding the law to protect the majority from the minority who does reckless things. Why do we need all of the traffic laws? Turn signals, speeding, etc. If people were responsible when driving their vehicles, we wouldn’t need a million laws detailing exactly how we should operate our vehicles on the public road.

                Don’t get me wrong; like I said before, I am FOR small government. However, I don’t think laws like these are unreasonable, and if the public finds them reasonable, and they are not in violation of the constitution, then I don’t see a reason why a “reasonable and prudent person” would not follow them.

              • Good point, Alexander; such a law is invalid on the face of it, and it is thus the duty of good citizens to disobey, according to Jefferson and friends.

                It’s even worse when a so-called public servant takes it on himself to arrest someone for possessing fireworks remnants which obviously are garbage and belonged to someone else when they actually were fireworks.

              • One of the things they taught us at the police academy was that “There’s the letter of the law – and then there’s the spirit of the law.” The letter of the law says that if an officer sees someone breaking a law, that person is subject to citation or arrest. The spirit of the law says that the officer uses his discretion whether or not to arrest or cite depending on the prevailing circumstances. Most cops I knew policed the way I did – make an arrest only if you had to in order to keep the peace. “Lock-up artists” existed but they were not considered to be good street cops.

                Fireworks? The jurisdiction where I worked has gone from nothing explosive to nothing, not even sparklers. I was a cop when it was nothing explosive. Did anybody have and use firecrackers, M-80’s, and cherry bombs, particularly around Independence Day? You betcha, and in abundance. We responded to complaints and pretty much ignored everything else unless there was a “clear and present danger” or destruction of property. There were a couple of occasions where I did make arrests for fireworks violations. One was on a complaint of firecrackers being shot off in an apartment project on the wrong side of 2 AM. When we went to tell them to knock it off, they ran back into their apartment and wouldn’t answer the door, so we yelled through the door for them to cut it out. After the second time they did it, I parked my cruiser out of sight and worked my way back to the parking lot. Sure enough, the knucklehead was bending down to light another firecracker when I landed on him and cuffed him up. The other one was somewhat more serious. A couple of meatheads were amusing themselves by driving down the road and blowing up mailboxes. Then they blasted an electrical meter off the wall of a local business just before I caught up to them and put the “heinous-grabbus” on them. They thought it was pretty funny until the Fire Marshal arrived at the station and informed them that using an explosive device to damage a public utility subjected them to a 10 year prison term and/or as much as a $10,000 fine. Then it wasn’t so funny anymore.

                Kids drinking? Yeah, like none of us did it when we were teenagers, did we? If they were drinking somewhere very public like a shopping center parking lot, we’d have them pour out the beer and send them on their way. If they were somewhere out in the boondocks where nobody was going to complain about them, we’d make sure they had designated drivers and cleaned things up when they were done, with a stern warning that if anyone from the group was arrested for DWI the detente was ended.

                IMHO, we have far too many laws on the books. Anytime someone sees something they don’t like, they go to their town council or state legislators, bitch about something, and the legislators, eager to display their usefulness, pass an ill-considered law making whatever it is illegal. A prime example of that was when we had a rash of carjackings in our jurisdiction. The solons in Annapolis duly convened and passed a law making carjacking a separate and distinct crime. Now, if you stick a gun in somebody’s face and take something under threat of death or serious injury, that is, was, and always will be armed robbery – and calling it something else does NOT solve the problem.

                And don’t EVEN get me started on the firearms laws passed in “the Free State” in the wake of Sandy Hook.

              • Mike, you come across as a sensible person who did his best to be a valuable part of society. We can all appreciate that, but as I mentioned earlier, and please don’t take an offense to this, you are a dinosaur in the law enforcement field (and not only in that field, as many of us are becoming dinosaurs). That was a different time, when the Constitution was still respected. Today, I bet that over 90% of the younger population have never read the Constitution. That includes the younger cops, who only have department policies and their coworkers’ behavior as guides, but the power of the government and their gun to enforce their mistakes. They have little understanding of a free society and increasingly promulgate the feeling of us against them. In today’s America, with tens of thousands (or more) laws, a citizen cannot live a day without breaking some law somewhere. Thus, we are all criminals. This is sick. This is not what America is supposed to be.

              • Our town has just one officer left from that civilized ear when the law was a tool for keeping peace rather than a god to be bowed down to. Two local officers actually admitted to me one day that the only rights of citizens they knew of was to “remain silent”, free speech, and freedom of religion.

                Every public servant should have to memorize the Bill of Rights, just to get a job. Today they barely know there was a Bill of Rights.

              • Alexander – I feel kinda sorry for the kids who are cops today with their every act scrutinized, second-guessed, and Monday-morning-quarterbacked by people who are absolutely clueless about what a good street cop does. If I were a cop today and policed the way we did “back in the day” I’d probably be getting indicted about three times a week. Did we do some things which were extra-legal and unquestionably unconstitutional? Sure did. We did whatever we felt necessary to get the job done and keep the peace. As I mentioned before, we “kicked ass and took names” because that’s the kind of policing the majority of the county’s residents wanted. You simply can’t do that anymore in today’s litigious and frankly, WHINY society. The use of even mild force to effect an arrest these days means reams of reports and explanations to justify it. “Back in the day”, when you told someone he was under arrest and he put up a fight, you started with “hands on” and it that didn’t work, a nightstick or blackjack upside his noggin, followed by a trip to the ER for stitches, usually got the job done. Now they have the “Asp”, a metal expanding rod, and they’re in deep trouble if they hit anyone in the head with it, even unintentionally. Nobody ever questioned our use of reasonable force if someone put up a fight. In fact, once the booze wore off and the pain set in I’ve had more than one guy I had to fight to arrest apologize to me for being a knucklehead.

                At the end of roll call I’d tell my officers to hit the street and police in a way that made the good folks respect you and the bad guys fear you. That advice should still hold today.

              • Mike, you summed it up very well: “At the end of roll call I’d tell my officers to hit the street and police in a way that made the good folks respect you and the bad guys fear you. That advice should still hold today.” I could only wish that the majority of the cops today would follow that advice. And, yes, have a mandatory course on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

              • Mike, you obviously policed in a time when police were peace officers, not law officers. Thank you for your contribution to civilization.

              • Robert, your arrogance is unlimited.

                First, you are ignoring that the judges said that there was no law against what I was doing — not that the cop got things wrong, but that he was totally out of line. It wasn’t a disagreement over whether the facts fit a violation of the law, it was a matter that there was no relevant law, period.

                Second, your worship of the cops to the point that you assume everything in their favor is disgusting. The firework remnants I had were in a pile of other trash I’d picked up. They didn’t smell fresh, they were plainly old, shot off days before. And as I already said, the fact that the cop didn’t even take those remnants as evidence shows he wasn’t interested in the law, merely in — as the judge said — persecuting a citizen.

                You claim to be a constitutionalist, but your version of that is the reason we need a Libertarian Party: you clearly worship the state, always giving their gun-toting hirelings the benefit of the doubt.

                And yes, Obama and Hillary are supporters of a police state. Sure, they play on people’s emotions to get them riled up, but they’re getting them riled up at LOCAL police — a good step toward proposing that local police be replaced by a federal force. Consolidate power at the center, take away citizens’ arms, keep the “USA PATRIOT” act so the federal police have arbitrary and unlimited power… all aimed at a police state.

                How do you get “might makes right” from the proper locus of justice, which is at the hands of the intended victims? The government only gets to handle matters of justice because the citizens have loaned them some of their power to do so; it has no inherent authority for that or anything else. Justice at the hands of intended victims is the antithesis of “might makes right”: it says that might cannot be exercised for aggression, only for defense, and that the proper response to the exercise of might for aggression is the application of whatever force the intended victim judges necessary.

                The Second Amendment was not intended to protect that right, BTW; the right to justice at the hands of the victim — that is to say, self-defense — was considered to be so obvious no one thought it needed protecting (though SCOTUS in Heller has attached that right to the Second). That is why the colonies didn’t have the police structure we have grown; as one writer noted, they had constables, whose purpose was “to raise the hue and cry and call upon the well-armed citizenry”.

                Our current police structure is not something from the Constitution, it is a remnant of royal prerogative from old Europe, where kings had the authority to arm special agents to bend the subjects to their will. It does not belong in America at all, except in the form of the local sheriff who as an elected officer is a representative of the people rather than of the politicians.

                BTW, if you do not approve of pushing the bounds of liberty, you are a partner of those who would erode them: it is in the nature of government to encroach, and the best weapon against creeping tyranny is for citizens to push against the limits.

              • Roymond, I have not ignored the judges’ rulings; I have simply tried to explain them to you. As a professional social justice warrior, I know that you won’t agree, because a good social justice warrior never admits that he is not a victim.

                You keep trying to spout the same nonsense about there being no law that applied to you and the fireworks. Why don’t you visit this link for information about the fireworks laws in your area: http://www.usfireworks.biz/legal/legal.htm. To remind you: yes, there are regulations on possession of fireworks where you were arrested, and that is why you were arrested. Why would some cop just walk up to you and make up a law out of the blue to arrest you on? Do you truly believe that hogwash? If you do, I really feel bad for you. Life is not easy without common sense… Well, it ain’t so “common” any more.

                Roymond, I don’t worship cops; I just admire the job that they do, because I have been around enough of them to know that the vast majority of them do their job by the book, and are very pleasant people. Just because you are on the receiving end of law enforcement, you think everyone else should hate the police? That is pretty ignorant, and it is even more so to ignore the fact that they justifiably arrested you. If there was no law for them to arrest you under, please, by all means, sue the agencies involved, get your millions, and then but me lunch for helping you out. The dumb thing about your argument is that you just admitted to Matt that you can recall living in a place where you respected the police, and now, because I respect the police, you are attacking me. You are full of double-standards, buddy.

                I am a constitutionalist, and what is the constitution? It is the foundation of LAW and FREEDOM in the United States. I don’t worship the state, but I respect the country in which I live; a country of freedom, law and order. Personally, I am glad that the police arrest people who try to live outside of the law. I am not saying that every law that is broken is worthy of jail time, but whether it is a fine or jail time, what good are laws without enforcement or penalty? You just won’t admit that you did wrong, but the truth is that you did break the law (several times), and you paid the price. On top of that, you had a best case scenario, because you got off without even paying a fine in each case, and the judge dismissed the cases! To refresh your memory, that doesn’t mean that no law existed; that means that case could not be proven.

                “And yes, Obama and Hillary are supporters of a police state.” Yes, they are; I agree. That does not make them supporters of the local police! You obviously don’t know the difference between a police state and a policed state. Every country in the entire world has had law enforcement, and ours has the least problems with corruption out of any of the others! You are inflating this issue in your mind under the personal pretense that you have been victimized. You are the result of an overly progressive culture that believes that the truth is dictated by feelings. I can assure that science, reality, and plain observation are in disagreement with you.

                Hillary and Obama do want a police state, but that has nothing to do with a street cop enforcing the currently constitutional laws that every citizen is subject to. The police state will be federally controlled and regulated, unlike the police officers that arrested you, who were doing the will of the people in your community. One of the best ways to defeat the notion of the federal police state is to support your local government, and that includes… you guessed it! Local law enforcement! “Consolidate power at the center, take away citizens’ arms, keep the ‘USA PATRIOT’ act so the federal police have arbitrary and unlimited power… all aimed at a police state.” Exactly right! Now, tell me about how the local police do this. Go ahead. I’m waiting. Oh, you can’t, because they don’t do any of those things.

                “How do you get “might makes right” from the proper locus of justice, which is at the hands of the intended victims?” Wow. You are really having a hard time with this common sense thing, aren’t you? The concept of might makes right is what happens when you remove an object enforcer of the law. When you allow people to take the law into their own hands, might makes right, and that means that law breakers become the new law. How does this happen? It happens because bad people come in and use extreme force to take control and victimize as many people as possible and put them all under their control, and then the victims are POWERLESS to fight back. Have you ever heard of this little country called Mexico? Look at how the country is completely controlled by drug cartels that rule with shows of brute force. They even over power the local police now. Do you know why that happened? It happened because they had weak enforcement of their laws to begin with. With no government that was truly keeping law and order, there was a vacuum waiting for some governing power to take control of the populace. “The government only gets to handle matters of justice because the citizens have loaned them some of their power to do so; it has no inherent authority for that or anything else.” Exactly, and guess what? Your community voted against possession of fireworks! Sorry! “Justice at the hands of intended victims is the antithesis of ‘might makes right’: it says that might cannot be exercised for aggression, only for defense, and that the proper response to the exercise of might for aggression is the application of whatever force the intended victim judges necessary.” Oh, Roymond, there are so many flaws with your logic. First, justice at the hands of the victims does not mean that might can only be used for defense; by virtue of the fact that a person is a victim, it indicates that they do not have the “might” necessary to claim the justice that they desire. Additionally, the idea that the victim can judge for himself the ‘amount’ of vengeance necessary is pretty ridiculous. That is why the founders specified that these kinds of judgments be made by a jury of the victim’s and offender’s peers. Oh, that’s right, you are a constitutionalist, too; that means you must agree with me! 😀

                “The Second Amendment was not intended to protect that right, BTW; the right to justice at the hands of the victim — that is to say, self-defense — was considered to be so obvious no one thought it needed protecting.” Ouch, that was ignorantly-put. I guess you aren’t a constitutionalist after all. Like I said: a jury of the victim’s and offender’s peers. The right of self-defense is inherent in the statement, “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” “That is why the colonies didn’t have the police structure we have grown; as one writer noted, they had constables, whose purpose was ‘to raise the hue and cry and call upon the well-armed citizenry.’ Well, what do you think brought about modern law enforcement? Probably an increase in number and strength of law breakers. Like I pointed out in an earlier post, modern cops are members of the communities that they police. Guys like you try to exclude them simply because you were caught breaking the law, but they are just as much a part of your community as you are. Remember the cops you spoke of that you respected? How do you rationalize your statements about police as a whole and those officers that you claim to have respected?

                “Our current police structure is not something from the Constitution…” Actually, yes it is. Remember the part of the constitution that leaves anything that is not spelled out in the constitution to the states? That is where local law enforcement gets its authority; from the states, through the constitution. You are trying every argument in the book to try and demonize law enforcement, and why? All because they arrested you in the course of doing their job! Why don’t you try living above reproach? Why break the law? Do the speed limit. Don’t walk around with your Johnson hanging out when outside of the confines of your own home? (No one wants to see your SBR anyway. ;D) Don’t argue with cops; do what they ask you to do. If they do something you disagree with, go through proper channels by writing the Internal Affairs Departments, write the chief of police, write the mayor, sue their agency. If you really believed any of the things that you are saying, you would do all of the above, but you know you are wrong, so you are justifying yourself in the only way in which you will get any desirable result: by trying to convince others of your victimhood by riding the wave of anti-police sentiment.

                “BTW, if you do not approve of pushing the bounds of liberty, you are a partner of those who would erode them.” Wrong. I am for the responsible exercise of liberty. It is the liberal approach to erode liberty, and that is your ilk, not mine. In your mind, would the victim that has to watch you walk around in the nude be justified in kicking your butt and forcing you to put your clothes back on so that his children won’t be scarred for life? That is what you consider freedom. I consider that one man’s freedom ends where another’s begins, and if we are conscious of our neighbors and countrymen, then there would not be need for an over abundance of laws. It is you with your foolish actions, parading your bad decisions under the false pretense of liberty, who harm the liberty of everyone else, and then claim you were treated unfairly. Again, the constitution calls for “reasonable and prudent people.” John Adams said it best when he said. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

              • Robert, it’s plain you aren’t interested in actually reading what I wrote; just one example will suffice: you attacked me for the exact opposite of what I said about Hillary and Obama and a police state.

                It’s also plain you don’t understand the Constitution: it is most certainly NOT the “foundation of freedom” — it’s an attempt at guarding freedom. The foundation of freedom is self-ownership.

                I won’t admit I did wrong? Odd that the judges disagreed with you. Your respect for the Constitution is shown as shallow here, and for the legal system, since according to the courts I not only did no wrong but in some instances was being persecuted for disobeying laws that don’t exist. When the court points out to an officer that there is no law for what I was arrested for, that means there is no law for what I was arrested for.

                I am not attacking you for respecting the police (another reading comprehension fail); I am attacking you for defending corrupt police.

                No, I wasn’t arrested because I possessed fireworks; if that was the actual reason, the cop would have actually gathered evidence for his charge. The “evidence” was right there in front of him, but he left it sitting with the other trash. Just because a cop pulls out a law and says it’s what he’s arresting someone for doesn’t make it the reason the person was arrested.

                Why would a cop make up a law? Because they have the power! I sat and watched one day while two cops cuffed someone, then left the person sitting while they went back and looked through their book of laws to find one they could apply! All they wanted was the points for arresting someone (and yes, they get points; I’ve heard cops discussing it — the number of arrests they make counts toward promotion, and whether they call it points or something else, that what it is).

                I’m not operating on feelings, but on objective analysis. When a judge points out to a cop that there was no law to arrest me under, that my behavior was protected by the constitution, then objectively there was no law to arrest me under. When a cop arrests me without even examining his supposed evidence, then objectively he is not interested in the actual charge. When a cop is given permission for a search but instead engages in vandalism, that cop is acting outside the law and has no business being a cop.

                “Might makes right” has nothing to do with “object enforcement of the law”, it has to do with the application of coercion to get one’s way. It is a concept that applies to government, that since the government holds the power, it can do what it wishes and what it wishes is right.

                The Framers specified that judgments be done by juries not because they didn’t trust intended victims to defend themselves properly, but because they didn’t trust government to make judgments about them. Juries are a limit on the power of government, not on citizens. Indeed, the right to trial by jury assumes that police cannot be trusted, since they are an arm of the government.

                Twisting justice into “vengeance” is fallacious, an emotional red herring. If someone violates my rights by attempting to make me a victim, it is my sole province to decide what form of defense I will employ — which is to say, what sort of justice I will mete out. We only allow government to make such judgments for us; it has no inherent authority to do so.

                States do not get police powers from the Constitution: the Constitution reserves rights to the states, not powers — but it primarily reserves rights to the people, since only people have rights. There is no right to have a police force that is not accountable to the people (and only sheriffs are actually accountable).

                By saying we should do what cops ask us to do, you authorize their personal exercise of tyranny. The Founders would disagree; we should only do what cops ask when it is right and moral; remember that they held that unjust laws should be disobeyed.

                “Living above reproach”. That’s the Pharisee argument — not only follow the Law, but follow whatever things the powers-that-be consider to be improper. It is NOT the argument of a free people; it is an argument for the tyranny of the mob. Why? Because what is “above reproach” differs from time to time and place to place and even among people in a given place. (so-called) Liberals would say that carrying a gun is not above reproach; many atheists would say that wearing a cross in public is not above reproach. It’s a subjective term by nature, unless it means nothing more than that I respect the self-ownership of others.

                Finally — and since you suffer from reading comprehension failure, that a final finally — my going about nude is no different than my sitting by a campfire in a public campground playing my guitar and singing Christian worship songs, or wearing my Ruger on my hip, or eating pork in public: all are freedom of expression, all are equal. If anyone needs to change, it is those who fail to understand liberty.

                BTW, my personal reasons for not trusting cops are just a small fraction of my total reasons. That you assume they are my total reasons shows you have failed to read, as I have given others. Just for fun, here’s one: cops here have asserted that if you lived here and were in your shower scrubbing your body and a minor broke in through your bathroom window, YOU would thereby be a sex offender. Under existing law a prosecutor might even make such a charge stick — which shows that the law is itself corrupt. Any police officer who would make an arrest under such an unjust law using such unjust “reasoning” is also corrupt. As Plato noted, it is the guardians who must be above reproach.

              • Roymond, I think that a correction is in order here, which may be just a misunderstanding of terms. When you use the word “corruption” and “corrupt,” in this context, I don’t think that you mean taking cash bribes. I don’t want to put words in other people’s mouths, but I think that Robert is understanding you literally – taking cash bribes. Robert, there are more ways that a person or an organization or a system can be corrupt, with out direct money exchange taking place. Few people here would disagree that we have a corrupt government, but it has legitimized its means of extortion.

              • Well, in the case of Obama and Hillary (Hillary particularly), I do think that they have legitimized extortion, but I do think much of it is still outright. I think it was finally exposed in the case of Hillary with the Clinton Cash documentary. That was a very well-produced video, and a very interesting watch!

              • Roymond, I have read every response of yours thoroughly, and that is exactly why I have had to correct you many times. You are obviously just in this conversation to gripe about how this country is such a terrible place to live, and it is all because of the “police state.” If you want to hear a sensible debate on the issue, I encourage you to click here:
                https://youtu.be/Sm_hZkfWw6g

                Roymond, you are right; the constitution is not the foundation of freedom. Neither is “self-ownership.” Self-ownership is a byproduct of freedom. The founders said that God is the foundation of freedom. I am sure that you don’t believe in Him, because if you did, you would recognize that God encourages people to obey the law of the land. I was referring to the fact that the constitution is the foundation of the laws that protect freedom is this country. Being the cornerstone document of the federal government and every local government, you can’t deny that.

                “Odd that the judges disagreed with you.” That is fine that they did. I have already schooled you in the American legal system several times, but apparently, it is just to complex for you to understand. Don’t plan on going to law school any time soon. “Your respect for the Constitution is shown as shallow here, and for the legal system, since according to the courts I not only did no wrong but in some instances was being persecuted for disobeying laws that don’t exist.” HAHAHAHAHA! Roymond, it is obvious that whatever happened to you in your trip through the justice system was much to complex for you to understand. I explained to you before about how an officer can make up a law to put on his paperwork when he arrests you, and no prosecutor is going to take a case all the way to court on a fictitious law. You made it to court, therefore, the law exists. The court obviously didn’t point that out to the officer, because the prosecutor would have had to do that first, when they discovered they were going to have to dismiss the case. Quit trying to peddle your misinformation here; it really makes you look desperate. Repeating the same garbage doesn’t make it true.

                “I am not attacking you for respecting the police (another reading comprehension fail); I am attacking you for defending corrupt police.” When did I defend corrupt police? I feel the same way about corrupt police, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges the same way that I feel about criminals; they should face the penalty of their crimes if sufficient evidence exists to convict them. The end.

                “No, I wasn’t arrested because I possessed fireworks; if that was the actual reason, the cop would have actually gathered evidence for his charge. The ‘evidence’ was right there in front of him, but he left it sitting with the other trash.” In the case of minor infractions, such as illegal possession of fireworks, an officers testimony of what he saw you in possession of is valid evidence in court. It is the same reason why an officer doesn’t have to bring a suspect’s beer to court when he arrests them for driving while intoxicated.

                “Why would a cop make up a law? Because they have the power!” You sadly misunderstand the way the system works, Roymond. A cop does not have the power to make up a law. Haven’t you ever watched School House Rock? Go back and refresh yourself with the “I’m Just a Bill” song. An cop is a LAW ENFORCER; key word = enforcer. They ENFORCE laws that legislatures have made into law.

                “I sat and watched one day while two cops cuffed someone, then left the person sitting while they went back and looked through their book of laws to find one they could apply! All they wanted was the points for arresting someone (and yes, they get points; I’ve heard cops discussing it — the number of arrests they make counts toward promotion, and whether they call it points or something else, that what it is).” AH HAHAHAHAHAH!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Roymond, you are so full of horse manure that it is hilarious. You are interpreting your observations in light of a faulty worldview, and it is totally skewing your view of reality! Cops may look through books of the penal code, but that does not make their arrests illegitimate, and it does not mean that they did not already know that a violation of law occurred. Sometimes, they know a violation of law occurred, but the don’t know the exact wording on of the title of the law, which is important when writing a citation, so it doesn’t get thrown out in court! Oh, and let’s not forget the idea that they get a promotion or some kind of incentive points for arresting people! This is the exact kind of crap that some anti-police nutjob would spout off, knowing good and well there is no truth to it AT ALL. You accuse the police of arresting you without evidence (which you are wrong about), and here you are fabricating some kind of nonsensical “point system” that influences how they arrest people. Roymond, you have already made so many verifiably untrue statements in this thread, it would probably be best for you to stop now and save any dignity that you have left, buddy.

                “When a judge points out to a cop that there was no law to arrest me under, that my behavior was protected by the constitution, then objectively there was no law to arrest me under.” Really? I had no idea that fireworks, nudity and vagrancy were protected constitutional rights. This is just more evidence that these things were never said by any judge that held a valid license.

                ‘“Might makes right” has nothing to do with “object enforcement of the law”, it has to do with the application of coercion to get one’s way.’ EXACTLY MY POINT. It is one or they other. That is why, in a country where the people run the government, there cannot be anyone exercising a “might makes right” system. In a country where each individual takes the law in there hands, as you proposed, it is ONLY a “might makes right” system. Again, look at the current state of Mexico.

                “…the right to trial by jury assumes that police cannot be trusted, since they are an arm of the government.” It also assumes that the victim can’t be trusted to make an objective ruling. That is why the constantly takes about a “reasonable and prudent person” making these rulings. The idea behind a jury is not only that it allows the citizens to make the judgements, but also that if multiple citizens were involved in the decision-making process, hopefully the reasonable and prudent people would outnumber the unreasonable people and/or fringe extremists.

                “If someone violates my rights by attempting to make me a victim, it is my sole province to decide what form of defense I will employ — which is to say, what sort of justice I will mete out.” Wrong. The law dictates what is an acceptable response to being made a victim. If someone’s dog poops on your yard and you shoot the owner for it, I don’t think anyone would find that reasonable. If a cop stops you because you look like a general broadcast of a robbery suspect, and you shoot the cop because “he didn’t have the right to stop you,” you are wrong again. You see, you are taking this ridiculous idea that cops all over the country are OUT OF CONTROL and applying it to every cop. What those cops did to you was completely reasonable, and if the judge disagreed and dismissed the case, that does not mean that the cops were corrupt, it means the judge did not think that the state was able to make its case. PLEASE READ IT FOR THAT LAST TIME! And if you really think the system was targeting you, why would it stop at the street cop level? Why wouldn’t the judge just go ahead and throw you behind bars to keep this big old charade going? That is more evidence AGAINST what you are calling a corrupt system.

                “States do not get police powers from the Constitution: the Constitution reserves rights to the states, not powers…” Roymond, I can’t believe how hard of a time you are having using common sense. It is the 10th Amendment that reserves the powers to the states that are not specifically given to the federal government. Read the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” That means it gives local governments, which are composed of the people in those localities, the rights that are not reserved for the federal government or prohibited to them by the bill of rights. That means that the people of these localities have the right to make their own laws, and if they have the right to make their own laws, they have the right to enforce them! The police are put in police by the people so that guys like you aren’t going around taking the law into their own hands; it adds objectivity to enforcement. I know, I know; “but the police are corrupt!” Tell me again; how are they corrupt? For arresting you on legitimate charges? Or for releasing you because they decided that their case was too weak?

                By the way, of course, the police are accountable to the people. Everything that a police department does is subjected to civilian review these days, and the chief of police is appointed by the mayor, an elected official. So yes, the police are accountable to the people, just like a sheriff is.

                “By saying we should do what cops ask us to do, you authorize their personal exercise of tyranny.” HAHAHAHA! You are a right, Roymond. No, I am saying that you should obey the law enforcement officers that are enforcing the law. Even if you disagree with their judgment, do you honestly believe that the best place to contend with them is out on the street? If you disagree, complain to the agency, fight the case in court, etc. By LAW, you HAVE to comply with an officer’s commands when he is exercising his authority to enforce the law, and just because you don’t feel he is right or justified does not excuse you from the law. I know, I know… “you are just worshipping a police state!” No, I am not; I just prefer to follow the law and be at peace with the law and my neighbors, instead of crying about how my exploits to disregard the law landed me in jail. “The Founders would disagree; we should only do what cops ask when it is right and moral; remember that they held that unjust laws should be disobeyed.” And who are you to decide what is right and moral? That is a job tasked to our legislative and judicial branches; not to Roymond, the social justice warrior.

                “‘Living above reproach”. That’s the Pharisee argument — not only follow the Law, but follow whatever things the powers-that-be consider to be improper. It is NOT the argument of a free people; it is an argument for the tyranny of the mob.” No, it is not! Didn’t you read what I said? I said I CHOOSE to live that way, which implies free choice, Roymond. Guess what, Roymond? Regardless of whether you choose to live a safe and civil life, or you choose to live on the edge, “pushing the boundaries of freedom,” which implies that there are indeed boundaries (your words, not mine), we are all living under a system of law, and that implies that we are submitting ourselves to an authority. It doesn’t make us any less free, if we are law-abiding citizens, and those that are making the laws are reasonable and prudent members of the society. If you choose to disregard the laws, don’t be mad that the people in authority enforce the law on you. Why is that so hard to understand? You have a false notion that ‘freedom’ means Roymond is able to walk down the street naked, shooting his gun in the air, etc. That’s not how freedom works when you live in a society of free people. Everyone has a freedom, and the law established where the boundaries of freedom that you mentioned lie.

                “….what is “above reproach” differs from time to time and place to place and even among people in a given place.” No, it doesn’t, Roymond. In reference to the law, which that comment was indeed referencing, the law is an objective standard. Being “above reproach” in regards to the law means you follow the law in whatever place you are. Myth: busted.

                “…my going about nude is no different than my sitting by a campfire in a public campground playing my guitar and singing Christian worship songs, or wearing my Ruger on my hip, or eating pork in public: all are freedom of expression, all are equal.” Yeah, and so is a muslim’s jihad, etc. The point at which it is no longer “freedom of expression” is when it violates the law. Quit trying to justify violations of the law. If you are justified in violating whatever laws you subjectively disagree with, so is the guy that steals your car out of your driveway. He doesn’t believe that you deserve to keep that car from him, and any law to the contrary is just WRONG!

                By the way, if you really are a Christian who sits around worshipping the Lord, how do you justify disobeying God’s word by not submitting the government authorities that God has allowed to be put in place? That’s straight out of 1 Corinthians. And let’s not even get on to the topic of public nudity and biblical conservatism.

                “If anyone needs to change, it is those who fail to understand liberty.” You are right; since you don’t understand it, read this post again, and get to changing, Roymond.

                “…cops here have asserted that if you lived here and were in your shower scrubbing your body and a minor broke in through your bathroom window, YOU would thereby be a sex offender.” AH HAHAHA! I can’t take any more of your jokes, Roymond! Stop! STOP!! Seriously though, that is ridiculous. I any criminal case, one of the elements of the offense is always culpability, which would be impossible to prove in a hypothetical scenario like that. “Under existing law a prosecutor might even make such a charge stick — which shows that the law is itself corrupt.” Again, Roymond, you seriously need to evaluate this crazy, skewed worldview of yours… You are making your own life difficult by believing so many arbitrary and inconsistent things.

                “As Plato noted, it is the guardians who must be above reproach.” First off, you just made that up. Plato never said that. And secondly, you just finished saying that a person living above reproach was a “Pharisee (Pharisaical) statement,” because what was above reproach was always changing!

                Go back to the top, and click on the youtube link. You will seriously enjoy that video, Roymond.

              • “Self-ownership is a byproduct of freedom. ”
                That’s exactly backwards. It is because we pwn ourselves that we have freedom. If we did not own ourselves, we would have no rights, no freedom.

                “….what is “above reproach” differs from time to time and place to place and even among people in a given place.” No, it doesn’t, Roymond. In reference to the law, which that comment was indeed referencing, the law is an objective standard. Being “above reproach” in regards to the law means you follow the law in whatever place you are.”

                Again you worship the law. What is above reproach is what a people consider moral. Ans while the law may be objective, that doesn’t make it just. And the Founders held that there is no duty to obey an unjust law, perhaps even a duty to disobey it,

                “By the way, if you really are a Christian who sits around worshipping the Lord, how do you justify disobeying God’s word by not submitting the government authorities that God has allowed to be put in place? That’s straight out of 1 Corinthians. And let’s not even get on to the topic of public nudity and biblical conservatism.”

                When have I not submitted to the governing authorities? Besides which, the “governing authorities” God has established in America boils down to the Constitution — not the peons armed by the state.

                Public nudity and biblical conservatism? No problem — the Bible nowhere condemns public nudity.

              • “Self-ownership is a byproduct of freedom.” When you initially said “self-ownership,” I thought you were talking about the right own private property. Sorry, my mistake. I disagree with you about the concept of self-ownership, however. I believe that no man is an “owner” of himself. As God is the creator of all men, He is the owner of all. That is why we all have rights that are endowed upon us by Him that are inalienable. I don’t think that there is any room in a republic for “self-ownership,” because the idea implies that as the owner of one’s self, no external authority has the right to dictate anything to you in regards to yourself. We know this is not true, because if you punch another individual, he will appeal to a higher authority (the police), and they will come and force you to comply with the applicable laws and process. You have seen that first-hand.

                “Again you worship the law. What is above reproach is what a people consider moral.” I don’t worship the law, Roymond; I respect the law. There is a stark difference between the two. I believe the process in place should be followed, which would allow for unjust laws to be repealed, and good and just laws to be enforced. You just want to throw the system on its head; that is called anarchy, or as we have said in past conversations, “might makes right.”

                “Ans while the law may be objective, that doesn’t make it just.” Again, that is why there is a process of appeals in place to take laws up all the way to a federal level. Unjust laws can be removed if you follow the process. That has nothing to do with the police, who are legitimately enforcing the law. I know, Roymond. “There are police out there making up laws, they are corrupt, etc.” That is why you appeal to their internal affairs divisions and there oversight agencies; if they stepped outside of the bounds of the law, these agencies will make sure that they are dealt with.

                “And the Founders held that there is no duty to obey an unjust law, perhaps even a duty to disobey it…” While I agree with the concept of what you are saying, there is no source that quotes the founding fathers as saying this. Additionally, you, in and of yourself, are not enough to deem a law as just or unjust. Since “we, the people” vote to have these laws put in place, “we, the people” must collectively decide that a law is unjust and vote to remove it. It happens all of the time. Where I live, the city government tried to put a red light camera system in place that would take pictures of people running red lights and charge them for the violation. You think people get mad when arguing with a cop? You should see how mad they get when arguing with a camera! In the end, “we, the people” voted against that law, and the camera system was no longer enforced, and all of the pending fines were disregarded. You see, you are not some autonomous agent of law, contrary to popular belief. The will of the people is what must be done; not just the will of Roymond, or Robert, or any other individual.

                “When have I not submitted to the governing authorities? Besides which, the ‘governing authorities’ God has established in America boils down to the Constitution — not the peons armed by the state.” Incorrect! Bringing yourself in subject to the authorities above you means ‘respecting’ them, biblically. Here is the passage from Romans 13:1-5,

                “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”

                Paul is saying that you need to subject yourself to the authorities that God has put in authority above you (the police), because EVERY authority is appointed by God. Now, read that last part again. “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Paul is saying that you should subject yourself to these authorities not only so that you won’t be punished (punitive action: tickets, arrest, etc.), but also for your conscience sake (so that you will be ABOVE REPROACH).

                “Public nudity and biblical conservatism? No problem — the Bible nowhere condemns public nudity.” HAHAHAHAHA! Roymond, you are cracking me up, man. Let’s have a look at the first case of nudity since the fall of man in Genesis. So, Adam and Eve were created, and they were naked, living in the Garden of Eden. After they broke God’s one law (uh oh, look out, Roymond! Even in the garden of Eden, God was a stickler about the law!), they realized that they were naked, and they hid from God due to this fact. Why? Because once they were no longer innocent, they realized that being naked publicly is shameful. Adam and Eve tried to hide their nakedness by fashioning clothes out of fig leaves. When God came to find them in the garden and asked them why they were hiding, what was Adam’s response? “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” What did God do at this point? Did He rip off their fig leave outfits and tell them there was nothing wrong with being naked? No, He killed the animals and made Adam and Eve clothing from the animal skins, and then banished them from the garden. After this, God made many references to the “shamefulness” of nudity when it is outside of biblical sexual activity. Here is an article that you can refer to from an unbiased source for more information:
                http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26345/~/what-the-bible-says-about-public-nudity

                Look at that passage from Romans again. It looks like the Bible doesn’t agree with your philosophy of “self-ownership,” either.

              • Well, Robert, you reveal yourself as one of a group that most of the Founding Fathers despised: a theocrat.

                I know very well what the Apostle Paul said; I read it in the original. But it is irrelevant to a discussion of government –except to note that those who espouse such a position are one of the very good reasons to have a Second Amendment: so we can put them down as the rabid animals they are if they begin to take over.

              • “Well, Robert, you reveal yourself as one of a group that most of the Founding Fathers despised: a theocrat.” Oh, that I most assuredly am. So were the founders, Roymond; they did not despise them. Who did they say gave us those inalienable rights? That’s right, our Creator; and if our Creator is the one that gives us these rights, then he is certainly the governing authority, is he not? If you don’t believe that these rights come from our Creator, then it is no wonder why you don’t follow any of the scripture quoted above, you live your life as if you are your own God, you get mad when legitimate authorities enforce the law on you, you get mad one someone says that following the law is living above reproach, and you disagree with the correct interpretation of the constitution. Like I said early on in our conversation, you worldview is completely inconsistent with itself. Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand; and your worldview is a house divided.

                “I know very well what the Apostle Paul said; I read it in the original.” Well, whether you read it or not, you have failed to heed it.

                “But it is irrelevant to a discussion of government…” Roymond, you illogical arguments were funny at first, but now, they are just plain concerning. The scriptures that tell us to submit ourselves to the governing authorities are completely pertinent to a discussion about whether or not we respect the police, which if you scroll up, you will find this article was about to begin with. It appears that you labeled yourself as a Christian when it was convenient and you thought it would leverage your argument, but now that the bible itself has condemned your argument and your actions, your are throwing off your “faith” like an old coat. That is pretty sad.

                “….note that those who espouse such a position are one of the very good reasons to have a Second Amendment: so we can put them down as the rabid animals they are if they begin to take over.” Wow. There you have it, everyone. Roymond believes that he deserves the first amendment right to freedom of expression so that he can walk around nude and hurl threats of violence during a debate about government, but people who believe what the founders believed, that every person, sacred and created by God, has inalienable rights given to them by God, should be gunned down in the streets… Good thing you were around during the Revolutionary War, Roymond. I am sure you would have been a conscientious objector.

                “Robert, I don’t give much credence to an article that opens its argument with a lie, namely that the association between nudity and sex is ingrained and natural.” If you disagree with that, Roymond, you lack common sense. Yes, a person can be desensitized to the point that the natural association is broken down, but that does not diminish the fact that it is natural. “The truth is that the link between nudity and sex is something that’s taught.” It is? Have you ever tried to have sex with your clothes on? Have you ever looked at a fully covered women, similar to how the Muslims dress there women, and felt aroused? I can’t say for sure, because you are certainly a strange guy, Roymond, but my guess is that you have done neither, and you won’t, unless you have some strange fetish… But hey, whatever floats your boat in that weird worldview of yours, buddy. I can understand that you did not like the article, etc., but you never did deal with the scripture that I cited for you about Adam and Eve… I guess you can ignore that one if it would be damaging to your beliefs, right? “The article continues by twisting the scripture in the same old way, trying to make the attitudes of people those of God.” What scripture did they twist, Roymond? Why don’t you cite any scriptures that would back up your viewpoint?

                “BTW, I thank God greatly that He deliver4ed from from Dr. Dobson and his ilk. Anything that comes from them should be treated with suspicion.” Why? Any advice that cites the scripture ought to be welcomed by a believer of the bible, shouldn’t it? Yet, they cite scripture, and you ignore it and argue without citing any scripture…

                Did you go to church today, Roymond, or is that something that you feel no biblical requirement to do, either?

              • Robert, I don’t give much credence to an article that opens its argument with a lie, namely that the association between nudity and sex is ingrained and natural. The truth is that the link between nudity and sex is something that’s taught. The article continues by twisting the scripture in the same old way, trying to make the attitudes of people those of God.

                BTW, I thank God greatly that He deliver4ed from from Dr. Dobson and his ilk. Anything that comes from them should be treated with suspicion.

              • “I respect the law. There is a stark difference between the two. I believe the process in place should be followed, which would allow for unjust laws to be repealed, and good and just laws to be enforced.” — Robert, let’s take the Socratic approach here – before we talk about things in the middle, let’s discuss the extremes. If you were a citizen in the Nazi Germany, a country that had precise laws for everything, would you follow the Law and would you take your grievances to the courts?

              • No, I wouldn’t. If I lived in a country where a regime had taken over that was committing genocide, like Germany, I would leave the country, because obviously, at that point, people would know that there was systemic corruption. In this country, we also have the recourse that if the government started to try and kill off a certain type of person, etc., we could justify a constitutional uprising by taking up arms against the government.

                The main difference between the scenario you have given and the what were are debating here is that the people in this forum are not arguing against some totalitarian regime; they are arguing about their disrespect for lawful agents of the government. In our country, the local justice system still actually works; and in many cases, the suspects of crimes get off on crimes that it is fairly obvious that they have committed vs the amount of people who are lawful convicted, let alone the number of people who are falsely convicted. And yet, the debate here is about something much more trivial; the person who is simply enforcing the law. He does not create the law; he does not convict the offender; he simply enforces the laws that are on the books. That is it.

                Why are these same people not more outraged about the fact that our federal law enforcement branch, the FBI, is NOT prosecuting the criminal Hillary Clinton for her crimes? Does anyone here agree with Director Comey, or do they think that Hillary should be charged? If she should be, why are any of us any more immune to the law? If Hillary should be charged, which I believe that she should be, then I am not going to argue about receiving tickets when I was speeding, not wearing my seatbelt, etc., because the law should be equally enforced. However, if everyone here feels that they don’t deserved to be stopped by the police for their infractions of the law, but they feel that a person like Hillary should be prosecuted, then they are holding a double-standard.

              • The fact that Hillary’s many crimes are not brought to court, when as a person could be arrested for possessing fireworks is in itself an indisputable sign of a broken and corrupt system.

              • I completely agree with you, Alex. I guess I should have been a little more direct with my point. My point is this: any systemic corruption that we are observing not at the local level; it is at the federal level. All of the folks that are griping about police officers who are doing there jobs is misguided. If a police officer had the authority to do so, he would have slap some cuffs on Hillary and placed her in jail long ago. The problem is that because this is a breach of federal law, the federal law enforcement branch and federal prosecutor (attorney general) is responsible for the investigation, and because they are (financially) in the pocket of the suspect, nothing has been done. Director Comey has ties to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Cash, and we all know that the Attorney General was spotted having a secret meeting will Bill Clinton shortly before Comey announced that Hillary would not be charged. This is why I believe (and I think we would all agree) that we should get the money out of politics. This is also why I am against privatizing these public institutions. Essentially, when the Clintons begin paying off the officials over these institutions, they are “privatizing” these institutions and having them work for them. The fact that they are paid off means that they are no longer accountable and submitted to the will of the people, which we can obviously see happening with Clinton waltzing around the legitimate charges that should have been brought against her.

              • “Why are these same people not more outraged about the fact that our federal law enforcement branch, the FBI, is NOT prosecuting the criminal Hillary Clinton for her crimes?”

                Fallacious. That’s not under discussion here, and you have not the least idea of how people stand on that, just your own fantasies.

                One could just as well ask why you think the FBI is even constitutional — but that, as your question, is a different discussion.

              • Roymond, seriously, the time has come to use some common sense.

                I simply pointed out the double-standard that anyone holds if they think the law should not apply to them, but it should apply to someone else. Do you or do you not believe that Hillary Clinton should be indicted for the many federal laws that she has broken? If you don’t, then you are an anarchist, a non-patriot, or some combination of the two. If you do believe that she should be indicted, then what makes you think that those laws are any more or less legitimate than the ones that you are protesting? It is a simple and honest double standard.

                I don’t have to defend the constitutionality of the FBI; where there is law, there must be an enforcer, or the law is essentially non-existent. By virtue of the fact that the constitution exists, it is assumed (by the founders and anyone else with adult-level intelligence) that law enforcement will exist to ensure its effectiveness.

                For Pete’s sake, Roymond; at this point, it is clear that all of your arguments have been handily defeated, and you are grasping at straws. Calling people’s responses “fallacious” without being able to even provide a legitimate argument is just childish. Save your time and energy, and just go back and retread this whole discussion. It would truly benefit you.

          • Roymond, in regards to this case in which you claim that the shady DA defended some rogue officer, why don’t you give us the names of the people involved so we can research it and find out for ourselves? Your ambiguous statements are not helping your case.

            You admitted in an earlier post that you have had plenty of run ins with law enforcement, so I would not tend to take you as an objective, unbiased source on the state of law enforcement. In regards to the judge in your case, you like the judge because he ruled in your favor, but if he didn’t you would telling us about some “corrupt” the judge who was in on the deal. As far as the judge calling the cop’s actions, “persecution of a citizen,” what did the cop do? Did he beat you up? Did he plant evidence? Or did the judge state the cop simply didn’t have the probably cause to approach you initially?

            Yes, “making crap up” is unverifiable and subjective; you never specified what the cop testified to that was physically impossible, so it is not verifiable and objective.

            “Yes, I have run-ins with cops, mostly because I am not willing to give up lawful behavior of which they do not approve.” What lawful behavior are they trying to stop you from doing? Your vagueness certainly makes it seem like you are lying, Roymond.

            Contrary to your mistaken beliefs, the police discipline their ranks regularly. Yes, just like how some criminals get off on a legitimate charge occasionally, sometimes a bad cop will beat the system. It happens; that is the nature of a system that is staffed by men. They aren’t perfect, they make mistakes, some are good, and some are just plain bad. The ridiculousness of your view is that you don’t think that police should treat every citizen like the worst of society, but you want to treat every cop like the worst of police officers. What you need to recognize is that even though a specific police officer may wrong you, that does not mean that all police officers are corrupt. You need to learn the difference between a systemic issue and a rogue employee. Additionally, the idea that these agencies are hiding or defending these corrupt cops or agents is nonsense. If that was the case, the judge in your case would have just called you guilty and moved on to the next case.

    • Inebriation isn’t a defense, and it wasn’t in the case you cited — unless you are claiming that inebriation constitutes a form of self-defense.

      The good thing about that case is that he was judged to have acted in self-defense despite the fact that he was inebriated.

      • Yeah, I’m sure the case hinged more on the fact that the police somehow failed to announce their presence than the fact that he was intoxicated. As my favorite Criminal Justice instructor in college, who was a former Chicago street cop and FBI agent who became a Federal Magistrate, used to say, “Bad police work ends up making bad law.”

Comments are closed.