“I fled my marital home in my mid-20s with whatever I could fit in a truck,” Erin Easter [above] writes at Fairfield, California’s dailyrepublic.com. “My ex-husband immediately began a campaign of harassment and stalking that went on for years. After numerous calls to the local police requesting assistance, I asked what I should do. An officer suggested I get a gun because situations like ours never end well for the woman. This advice stunned me. I was flabbergasted that a police officer was suggesting I should shoot my son’s father.” Yes, well, here’s the thing . . .
Alameda County rarely issues concealed carry weapons permits. If I still lived there I am certain I would not have been issued a permit, even with countless police reports chronicling my harassment. The officer I spoke to with suggested, “It’s better to be judged by 12 men than carried by six.” Law enforcement was admitting they could not always protect its citizens. The irony blows my mind.
Irony occurs when expectation confronts reality. You’d expect the police — who see the immediate, often horrific effects of violent crime on innocent citizens — to support the right to keep and bear arms without reservation. Some do. Many don’t.
Time and time again, I read of police chiefs opposing open carry or campus carry or some other expansions of Americans’ gun rights. Officials who swore an oath to uphold and defend the United State Constitution. Why is that? Why isn’t there an organization called Police Officers for Responsible Gun Ownership or some such thing?
Ayoob has said that some police officers invest a great deal of ego in the fact that they “get to” carry a gun publicly, and don’t want to share. (I hope he doesn’t mind me mangling what was surely better-phrased in one of his books)
And some police brass justify these types of denials as protecting police and police union interests. Rising crime can always be used to justify hiring more cops, buying more toys, and funneling more union dues back to the FOP. Crime rates falling, for the cop, is akin to sales volume falling for the retailer. It’s bad for business. The cops need victims, they need single mothers to be brutalized so they have the tear jerk example of why they should be paid more, why more cops should be hired, and ultimately that ends up strengthening the growing police union, its dues collection, and the political might that comes with a growing war chest and membership.
The FOP and elected officials are in an incestious relationship. The FOP funnels lots of money to candidates who promise higher salaries, less contract fighting, and a massive increase in retirement benefits. Then the cycle keeps going with the same candidates and entrenched politicos taking the FOP money and giving the FOP tax dollar favors.
Pretty much described all public unions,
News last week 49% of US union membership was gov’t employees. Insane that ANY are allowed and to so abuse the taxpayer.
The FOP and IAFF are the worst. As soon as budget cuts or benefits reductions are pitched, cops and firemen are paraded out as the face of those cuts. Recently one of our newspapers published the salaries of all our municipal employees. Dozens of cops across the county making $100k+ and some earning that in municipalities where the average household income is just $40k/yr. These salaries and the corresponding pensions are breaking the taxpayers.
Given that a local police dept will get 150 applicants for an open position, starting salaries should be falling, not skyrocketing.
That’s the general pattern for government. Failure is rewarded with bigger budgets. Success is “punished” with cuts. And since there’s no other option to go with (not even the option of opting out), market forces can’t correct this culture the way they would in the private sector.
On the other hand imagine if your policing was via a private company. You’d have your homeowner’s insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, car insurance, etc. and your insurance company would have requirements about what sort of private security your neighborhood had. Better security would reduce your rates, because it would reduce your chances of being a victim, much like airbags and LoJack reduce your car insurance premiums today. If you were a victim of crime, your insurance company would pay out. Then it would hire someone to investigate the situation (if cost effective), to attempt to recoup stolen property, or get reimbursement from the criminal, to reduce their losses.
If the crime was violent, the insurance company would prosecute the criminal in court (a public one). If convicted, the insurance companies would share the imprisonment costs, in order to separate threats from their customers (reducing future insurance payouts). And to offset that cost (and possibly recoup the cost of the insurance payout), they’d sell the prison labor like modern prisons do.
If the crime was nonviolent, the insurance company would prosecute the criminal in court. If convicted, they’d put a tracker on him to monitor his activities. And they’d garnish his wages, until they recoup their costs.
And, of course, without government cops enforcing gun laws and carry laws (if they even existed in a free-market utopia), people would be much better armed at all times. The increased risk of getting shot would dissuade many potential criminals.
But the unions, bureaucrats, and politicians would never let anything like that happen.
The scenario that you’ve described applies only to free people. Free people are responsible people. Our government intentionally keeps the population irresponsible so that most could not and would not be able to even imagine a situation where they are responsible (and free).
You know the quote TTAG uses a lot… “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility” was first written by L. Neil Smith in a Letter to a Liberal Colleague. Many of the Sci-Fi (and other) books he’s written have this same approach to law enforcement you describe. Bad guys wrong you, your insurance company pays out and the insurance company goes after them or you put the bad guys into a contracted jail facility and hold them until their insurance company bails them out.
I gotta say, the first time it got put to me like that (in Smith’s book The Probability Broach) I had to re-read it a time or two. The concept was utterly foreign to how things were. By the end of the book, I was wondering why it hadn’t always been run that way. It was my first exposure to Libertarianism at a young age. Seemed very logical and well thought out. Mind you, it requires individuals who assume the responsibility for their actions which would be inconceivable in this day and age.
The full L Neil Smithian vision of no government at all only works so long as the vast majority of people have the same ethic and the same notion of what’s your responsibility vs. what’s someone else’s.
Take the fact that no two people can seem to agree on where caveat emptor ends and fraud begins. Imagine suing someone where each of you could pick a judge favorable to his vision of where that line was drawn, and there was no final arbiter (Smith talks about the process ending after the second appeal, but there’s no way to make that “stick” in his vision, other than social sanction…and that relies on near unanimity of the society on who’s in the wrong).
However, that doesn’t mean some aspects of his vision couldn’t be useful.
This is a rough analogy, but one that’s good enough. Cops need criminals the same way social workers need poor people. As more and more common behaviors become potentially illegal, the need for more cops goes up. In the past few decades, the social work industry has worked hard to increase the number of everyday citizens who can be labeled “poor”. Now just about anybody can qualify for food-stamps and an Obamaphone. You just have to be “poor”.
“Crime rates falling, for the cop, is akin to sales volume falling for the retailer.”
Nope, they’ll just write more laws to make criminals out of innocent people. The term victimless crime is an oxymoron that shouldn’t exist, but legislators, councilmen, and police love pushing for more ways to squeeze blood from the public turnip. A drop in crime just means a jump in tyranny. How else do you explain the full jails and a 20 year low in violent crime?
Almost all cops carry off-duty, but they don’t open carry. A gun becomes a tool to most cops, rather than a fashion accessory like it seems to be for many urban open carriers.
To the above comments on pay.
Your average beat cop is not making 100k, though the top level admin maybe be.
As for reducing pay..
Many on here complain about the lack of quality in police. Well, it boils down to getting what you pay for. If there is no appeal at all to have a decent pay or benefits, qualified, educated, prior military, reasonable applicants will look to other career fields for employment. There needs to be a balance between not cutting taxpayers legs out from under them and making the job appealing enough to get some decent folks on the road.
money may not be the right thing. back in the day, around these parts, town sheriffs were sometimes out-gunned, or out couraged, buy the gunslingers or outlaws. towns would then put up “big bucks” to hire talent that could deal with the bad guys. sometimes those candidates were worse than the bad guys. sometimes the rescuer took the money, dealt with the problem and left. sometimes they took the money, dealt with the problem, and stayed…becoming the problem.
oh bull crap those same cops where every trademarked piece of apparel with the thin blue line on it. They cover their cars and family’s cars with stickers and worst than a vegan will tell you immediately and often they are law enforcement.
There are two reasons that leap to mind: cops want the monoply on force; cops fear having to make a split-second decision regarding who is a good guy with a gun.
Or, maybe there is a third reason (explained to me long ago by a DEA agent): police (of any kind) view all non-police humans as criminals needing to be arrested, only a matter of time.
I run into number 3 all the time Where the police officer thinks all non Police officers civilian populace if you will are criminals waiting to be hatched! Which is total bullshit!
Ahh, the old “guilty until proven guilty”
Same argument applies for the anti-gun crowd.
Legal system niceties aside (Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law), profiling is, by its very nature, the concept of “guilty until proven innocent.”
And we ALL profile, even the police who supposedly do not. Profiling is a survival mechanism by which we give ourselves a little lead time to determine if someone or something is a danger to us or not. Unless I am mistaken it is a component of the OODA loop. (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act)
So the solution, that police use every day is to look like a cop so people who see your pistol/rifle/gun do not panic because they (generally) perceive you as the good guy, not someone out to shoot them. For non-LEOs the same option applies – dress and act like someone other than the thugs LEOs generally have to deal with. You will be quickly profiled as “man with a gun” but not as “Dangerous thug with a gun who probably hates cops and wants to shoot at me.” IMHO
I’ve met a few of those cops, too. I suspect it’s a simple case of projection. The guys were some real awful people. They thought everyone was as morally corrupted as they were.
Thankfully, most of the cops I’ve met lately have been honest, good people.
In the abstract. I have some sympathy for reason number two. Everyone wants a simpler job, and nobody wants to accidentally hurt or kill an innocent person.
But in practice, cops are going to have to adjust and figure it out.
Yeah, the cop doesn’t want to have to make a split second decision to figure out who the good guy is. By disarming the good guys, they’re easily identified. They’re lying in the pools of blood. At least the cop doesn’t have any trouble identifying them. Tends to make HIS life easier, I guess.
That’s ironic. Many of us view police as slowly succumbing to temptation and corruption until they are ripe to hang from Jefferson’s tree of liberty.
In college, I worked at a manufacturing plant Summers, as a quality control technician. Based on my experience, I thought the company made the crappiest products on the planet. Decades later, that company is still Fortune 500. So, it is probably natural to get tunnel vision about people when you spend most of your time watching, tracking, deceiving and arresting “dirtbags”. Of course, for me in college, I saw products of other companies as better than mine; no excusing ignoring the general population of not bad guys, either.
It’s not just in the USA.
That 3rd view was voiced by an English comic I recall seeing many years ago. He said police saw society in three layers; police, criminals, and “potential criminals”, or “members of the Public”.
He gave an example of the term “members of the Public”, by the typical sneering statement of a police official e.g. “A ‘member of the Public’ was seen leaving the scene of the crime. Police are seeking that ‘member of the Public’, so that he may assist them with their official enquiries”.
You realize that between 1789 and 1814, the contest between a democratic America and restoration of the monarchy was a close run thing.
No we we’re pretty solid long before Independence, the GB Monarchy had lost grip strength during the French and Indian War. By the war of 1812 we we’re well over it and all European Monarhies were a little tapped out. But, yeah, i get you, America’s survived a lot of wet POS.
Cops can foget that they are just some of your neighbors who needed a job. Hold your right index finger staight up in the air. That is all the number of people you will ever equal. Hang a badge, a fire hose, miltary grade hardware, a Trillion doars, a Super Bowl or the Pope’s ring. If you ever catch yourself thinking you’re 1+ you’re broken and wrong, you need to hang it up and go to the house. If you’ve asked for a position of power, in a role of service to the public, and you are able to keep that in mind, the people you serve will generally take a bullet for you.
She was flabbergasted that the police officer told her that she may look into purchasing a firearm to protect her family and her cell? What a goofball! The officer was not telling you to shoot your ex husband retard, He was simply saying that these types of situations usually turn out very bad for the woman And that to prevent it turning out very bad for the woman and her family She may want to defend herself with a firearm. Better to shoot your ex husband why he’s trying to kill you then to be a statistic the next morning! Obviously if you had to run from a relationship like you did, There are much more underlying Issues that are going on there. I’ve never had to break up with a female And leave her house or have her leave my house quickly in the middle of the night or in the middle of the day packing only what she could carry in her trunk that’s ridiculous that’s not how grown people are supposed to act when a relationship in score terminates.
” . . . that’s not how grown people are supposed to act when a relationship in score terminates. . .”
Maybe on Mars where you live . . . In dysfunctional, abusive relationships this is all too often EXACTLY how things end. Moreover, I’ve found that most people have the kind of naive always-trust-the-cops-to-come-save-you faith that this woman had. This is especially (and sadly) true for women, and even more true for urban women who are unlikely to have any experience or knowledge of firearms. They make good targets for abusers. Savvy women with guns don’t.
Your insults give the rest of us a bad rap. Your abusive comments don’t help our cause.
I applaud this lady for coming to terms with reality and obtaining her firearm and training.
I spent the majority of my USAF career at Travis AFB, next door to Fairfield CA. About the time this woman escaped her situation, a major chased his wife from their home. He then proceeded to shoot and kill her while she cowered under their car. He then did us a favor and ended himself. I heard the scumbag was later interred at Arlington, I hope that’s false.
Of course you never had to break up with a woman or her have to escape from your home…that would imply you had the capability of creating a relationship…
i found the comments to be on-target, relevant and material. the woman apparently (based on the limited report she provided) is still not beyond the hesitation regarding actually shooting her children’s father. She has a gun, she has a permit, but my understanding she is still not certain she can use it. this is a dangerous situation for her, and maybe for those around her (those she might otherwise assist by “ending the threat”). is is fine that she owned up to her limits, but not fine if she never moves on.
All she need to do was get a restraining order against her husband, then she could LEGALLY carry a concealed weapon.
California Penal Code:
12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 (NOTE: 12025 is carrying a concealed weapon without permit)
is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is
in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a
current restraining order issued by a court against another person or
persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her
life or safety. This section may not apply when the circumstances
involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10
(commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual
finding of a specific threat to the person’s life or safety. It is
not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the
application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this
or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section
12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact
shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable
belief that he or she was in grave danger.
….and yes. Police Chiefs don’t like an armed populace because its bad for business: more crime = bigger budgets.
No, no, no. She needed to get a restraining order, period. The order would negate any need for her to obtain a weapon. Force of law would have prevented her former husband from interfering with her in any way. He would have no choice but to obey. That is how a civilized society operates.
Best practice here for a woman who has abusive ex especially if he’s the father of her children (under 18 yrs old) is of course to SHOOT HIM. Odds are he’s a deadbeat who doesn’t pay child support, once “made good” during a confrontation his timely death will guarantee a Social Security check to his children until they turn 18 years old (or longer if they continue their education trade school/college).
There’s a reason in “urban areas” that ghetto chickheads run to the Social Security office after the neighborhood gangbanger’s worthless life has been extinguished by either a rival gang or police. They pin their children on the dead guy, sit back, collect the bucks, smoke weed, and put low-profile rims/tires on their hooptie while laughing at the rest of us suckers.
1) so your previous domiciled state was f’d up and you left instead of taking care of business for us.
2) all men are dogs (according to women but they don’t really treat you like they would a dog). A dog does not / cannot ‘own’ a dog, so, without other reference, all dogs think they’re pretty ok. A dog does not know why you don’t want/need a dog, or even need another one. A dog does not know why you would no longer need one that you previously ‘owned’. If you abandoned your dog at the center of Yellowstone Park, it would try to find you, just sayin. Try to be nice to dogs.
To extend your tortured analogy a bit: aggressive, dangerous dogs that go where they’re not wanted tend to end up being put down.
Yeah, you can turm a standard poodle puppy into a guard dog.
It seems to me that most cops who live in the city have a mindset that citizens should not carry on there person while cops who live in the country do want citizens to carry.
Not true. I live in a very populated part of Florida and most cops have decided to give me warnings to my few traffic infringements because I was carrying. And I have a friend that is a sheriffs deputy for my county who fully supports my right to carry.
Not true, even here in Chicago. Almost all cops under The rank of captain support gun rights for the law abiding. Only have issues when you deal with the higher ranked political appointees.
Doesn’t every high ranking political appointee officer start out as someone under the rank of captain? Is it that lower ranking officers actually support your 2A rights, or is it just that they haven’t risen high enough yet for abolishing your rights to have aligned with their own selfish career interest?
Sounds like fair weather friendship to me. Think about that if the day ever comes when they’re given some horrific orders to follow, or else, and what their response is apt to be.
No, not ALL beat cops respect the RKBA. It’s the ones that don’t, that stay with the job until they get to the top, that continue on up to captain… Or possibly, like you said, fair weather friends that change their tune for political expediency.
In many departments, especially places like Chicago, the brass were never real cops. They may have worn a uniform but got promoted out of any real policework as soon as possible. Some because they knew they didn’t want to do it, others because they were terrible at it so the department found ways to creatively remove them from the street…
Cops are generally statist assholes, and people who could have been considered “bullies” in their youth.
Now, they get a gun, a defacto lisence to kill and all have the mentality that they’re better than everyone else.
While there are certainly exceptions not all police are bad, many of them are, and at least in CA they’re as anti-2A and anti personal rights as they come. For that reason it’s pretty easy to say f*** the police.
To the contrary, MOST cops are NOT statist assholes and live their lives trying to do away with bullies… My folks (both cops) taught me to stop a bully every time, regardless of whether I was the one being bullied. I started catching suspensions for scrapping in elementary school after standing up for kids I didn’t even know who were being bullied. After I took my licks at home for getting into trouble with the school, I was given a pat on the back. It was a good lesson that doing the right thing was often righteously punished.
My father retired from police work when I was young because he did not adjust to the “new” method of law enforcement, my mother retires this year after 30 years. Most cops I grew around were good, honest people. The rest were all complete shitbags; the kind you read about in the news. The problem is law enforcement, being paramilitary, discourages the good cops from rolling over on the bad ones. Cops, like the military, do some self-policing but never actually SOLVE any problems within their ranks by doing so.
The problem is systemic, and until policing undergoes another bottom-to-top shift like the one that happened in the 70’s-early 90’s, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. It WILL change, hopefully for the better. But even when it does, anybody with a monopoly of force over the the citizenry is NOT a friend, they’re an enforcer…
“…they are an enforcer.”
Bravo !
” . . .anybody with a monopoly of force over the the citizenry is NOT a friend, they’re an enforcer…”
Well, said.
Well, not entirely correct. So far, I’ve found cops in NM to be very supportive of RKABA. Most sherriffs in the country have stated they won’t enforce an AWB.
I’ve OC’d here in NM for 8 years, even in Albuquerque. Not one issue of harrassment or bad attitude from the city cops. The same from the populace.
Police chiefs are political appointies. They usually reflect the politics of the mayors which generally are more liberal.
My town here in NC is run by an obscenely liberal mayor. Our local PD chief is okay, does his job well and tends to stay above the local politics which earns him a big thumbs up from me.
The only contact I’ve had with my local PD in regards to open carry (which I do almost exclusively) was to have an officer get excited about and ask to check out my FNX which was pretty new on the market at the time. He was shockingly nonplussed when I politely told him that my weapon didn’t leave its holster for anything short of a life-threatening event and bedtime. He chuckled, shrugged it off, and we proceeded to have a conversation about it and guns in general without him laying his hands on it.
Opponents to gun rights know that law enforcement officers have heightened credibility with the general public on issues of safety and security. When they find a like-minded LEO, they will do whatever they can to get publicity for that man or woman.
Every law enforcement officer I personally know well enough to have the conversation has told me that they encourage ownership and concealed carry of firearms. They see it all day long, and know that in almost all cases, the dirt’s been done by the time they roll up.
You are your own best first responder, and if you choose to abdicate the responsibility of your protection to law enforcement, you do so at your own risk. They will try their best, but they cannot be everywhere at all times.
Again, all cops I know support the responsible ownership and carry of firearms.
I can’t understand cops being against concealed carry.
Although I support OC, I can at least see the cop’s perspective.
1) it offers debatable tactical benefit over concealed carry
2)it frightens the public (kind of like #2, but just generally more hassle for cops)
a. which results in nuisance calls
b. which increases the danger to officers and the open carrier
c. which is just a general hassle for the cops.
3) why not just carry concealed and everyone can just relax.
So like I said, most cops seem to support CC, but not OC.
Bullshit on all points…
1. The “tactical” benefit of concealed versus open carry has not and cannot be quanitified.
2. Tough shit if open carriers are a “hassle” to lazy or cowardly cops who either don’t want to know the law or aren’t interested in anything but their own bubble of security. The rest of the citizenry is entitled to THEIR own layer of security and their rights aren’t trumped by the thin blue line.
3. Such a silly statement…. If everybody carried openly, nobody would NEED to carry concealed. If everybody just did it MY way, there would be no problems. Thanks Obama, I can’t believe I’d never seen the light before you blinded me with it.
I am not saying I agree with their perspective. Just that I understand it.
Things WOULD be easier for them if everyone carried concealed. Period. There is no debating this.
We agree. My perspective is, do your job and stop your bitching.
Re OC or CC being better or worse tactically. Its debatable. That is my point. Its difficult to quantify. I’m sure there are some cases of people deciding to move on when they saw an OCer. And there are other cases of people specifically targeting OCers to take their gun.
And like you said, this has not been quantified, but both of these things must happen.
Don
“Things WOULD be easier for them if everyone carried concealed. Period. There is no debating this.”
Except, you’re trying to square the circle with this one. If everybody carried concealed, then the population of pearl clutching, hysterical types who faint at the sight of OC would essentially disappear. So some people would OC and it wouldn’t be an issue.
Sure, there may still be the occasional frenetic lunatic, but they’d be the oddball getting lectured by the police, not the OCer.
Well, OC is a deterrent to criminals. Criminals tend to not want to get into gunfights; seems to me that they’d rather use their gat to intimidate and get stuff and leave. If the criminal see an opposing gun, buys his soda, and just goes away, there winds up being no crime, and work opportunity for the police force/police union goes down. Not a good thing for police politics (at the higher political motivated levels). Concealed carry lets the criminal THINK he can get away with something, so he attempts a crime, maybe gets stopped, maybe not, but the police get more work out of it by cleaning up the mess afterwards (the real definition of policing). I’d just as soon 1) let the criminals be deterred, 2) increase gun awareness by showing the public (I’ve NEVER had anyone ‘scared’ of my openly carried gun) that there are guns around, and that not all guns out in the open are bad, and 3) have open conversations about guns, gun rights, and gun laws, that people initiate with me when they see me openly carrying.
I’d rather be alive and have to sort it out in court, than dead. It’s really that simple and the officer is right.
That being said, the only cops I know are ones I’ve trained with and met at gun ranges, so yeah they tend to be pro-gun. One cop I met wasn’t anti-gun per se but pretty much suggested that civilians with guns were more liable to harm themselves than criminals.
One of the things I’ve encountered with suggesting that abused spouses get a gun is that yes, they freak out when it’s suggested that they shoot the father of their children…which is understandable.
However, if it’s small solace, being shot these days isn’t a death sentence. Providing you are in a built-up area, medical support can be on-scene in less than ten minutes. Also, we shoot to stop, we don’t shoot to kill. Shooting someone doesn’t mean killing them.
The truth is that most police officers do support gun rights. These are the people who are the first responders. These are the ones who live their lives on the streets and see the evil that men do. Many of the civilian firearms training classes that I have attended have been taught by active or retired cops.
Police chiefs, on the other hand, are not really cops but political appointees. Regardless of what they actually believe, they do and say what they are paid to do and say by their masters because they are politicians first.
I only have a couple of “cop friends”, and both of them strongly support gun rights. I took a defensive handgun course from one. He holds the view that the more “good people” carry, the better off society will be. Recently, I casually mentioned something to the other one about owning a 7.62X39. He responded by saying “everyone should have one”, and asking “SKS or AK”? We’ve also had some good talks about reloading and red dot sites.
In California, it really depends on where you are. Sheriffs, as elsewhere, are elected, and police chiefs are appointed. In the urban areas, which are controlled by democrats, sheriffs and chiefs must tow the democratic anti-gun line in order to keep their jobs. However, these guys also seem to genuinely believe that citizens should be disarmed, because, “more guns equals more crime,” and they want to reduce crime. Their officers in the street, not so much. Some officers overreact, others are pretty curious because they’ve never seen a CCW license before. In rural areas, pretty much every cop and administrative staff officer, including the sheriffs and chiefs, is pro-gun (except in Imperial County by the Mexican border).
Like the lady that wrote this article I live in Alameda county. No permit for me. But the contrast between the chiefs and the street cops can be amazing. Caught red handed carrying without a permit and the beat cop kicked me and my gun lose.
My hunting buddy lives in Berkely. Dropping him at his place and there was a police action ongoing next door. We unloaded gear and guns in his front yard. Guns were cased. Female patrol seargeant comes over and while keeping an eye on the place next door converses with us about hunting and fishing. In Berkeley.
Someone should seek out this mysterious patch of pods where political appointee chiefs are hatched in their 50s, with no past decades as beat cops and low level officers, and installed directly into top P.D. jobs.
Such a place and process must exist, because what’s the alternative? That low level officers were gun grabbing statists all along? It just wasn’t until they reached top brass status that their indifference or animus translated into career gold?
If you think about it hard enough you might be able to figure out that people who are picked out and appointed are not done so at random and so don’t represent the whole.
As is true in any military style hierarchical organization, the top officers are politicians first….and they got there by being politicians first.
Here in Florida, there are 2 bills that will legalize licensed Open Carry. House Bill 0163 and its Senate companion 0300. The Florida Sheriffs Association is against them while the Florida Police Chiefs association supports the bill. During the last house judiciary committee meeting, there were a handful of Florida sheriffs who spoke out in favor of the bill. They stated that the main opposition was to the penalty a LEO would face on the original bill. However, the Police Chiefs worked to amend that language out of the bill(s). The Florida Sheriffs association took their blind vote before the bill(s) were amended and have not returned to vote on the bill as it is now. One Sheriff, stated that the vote now would show a different outcome with more sheriffs supporting the bill. It is unknown if there is a plurality of sheriffs in support of it, but there certainly is more than when they voted on the bill before it was amended.
the cops here in AZ are waaaaaay better about armed citizens than the SS back in new jersey.
Recall the police advice, 12 vs. 6. Fits inline with supporting the Triad of police, legislators, and judges working together creating a revolving door that feeds their paychecks. I’ve maintain time and again on this blog, police have no vested interest in protecting the public. Preventing citizens from lawfully protecting themselves, while fostering the lie the blue crew is the go to for protection, the Triad lays the foundation for criminals to murder, rape & assault the locals. If local police cared about your safety, they would give CCW details on weekly news programs and encourage all citizens to apply. Bottom line, your on your own, accept it, work it into your life, your the only one that can protect it.
Do not confuse the views of police chiefs, who are politically appointed, with that of real cops.
There are surely still some pro-gun control cops, especially in big liberal cities, but no profession is a monolith.
Because anyone who wants to be a cop has to be of low morals and suspect character. Only a degenerate wants power over other people.
the only difference between cops and gangs is the cops get to have those neato shiny badges.
My experiences with police while being armed have all been positive.
I’ve even gotten out of speeding tickets from idle gun chat on the side of the hwy with deputies.
That being said, I’m talking about small town and rural Texas. If I were to casually address an NYC cop, asking what model Glock he/she had, I’d likely get beaten about the head and shoulders and thrown in the patty wagon.
same here. But I am in heavily populated South Florida.
actually, it is called “paddy” wagon. goes back to somewhere in history where the police rounded up bad guys using a black wagon (horse or motor driven), which was sometimes called a “black maria”. thinking this goes back to english cops in ireland, but maybe not. many ethnic jokes (before aggie jokes?) started with irish characters, “paddy” being an irish nickhame.
can anyone straighten this out?
If I were to casually address an NYC cop, asking what model Glock he/she had, I’d likely get beaten about the head and shoulders and thrown in the patty wagon.
Not necessarily. I once had a lengthy chat with a young, uniformed NYPD officer who was on guard duty at a Manhattan bank. It started exactly — and I mean exactly — the way you mentioned — I casually asked him which Glock he was carrying (it was a G19). I don’t remember the officer’s name, but he was a real nice kid.
Kalifornia dingbat. Did the cop say anything about “shoot the father of your child”? NO. Perhaps to DEFEND .
You chose the guy. You chose let him (presumably) knock you up. You chose to bail on the marriage (mid 20 so it was what 3 or 4 year). Woman up chicky and stop whining about “campaign of harassment and stalking that went on for years” Sounds like nothing but tired feminist BS.
You’re right, that slut had it coming for wearing such a short skirt…
I wish I could judge people as well as you do in order to completely avoid any crazies after knowing them a brief time.
Jesus, man. Way to blame the victim.
The majority of female murder victims are killed by a intimate partner (past, present). These women need to make smarter decisions about whom they let into their lives.
The slut/short skirt bit was cute, but wildly off base, Matt. It’s one thing to make the ludicrous claim that a woman’s choice of attire somehow caused a predator to attack. It’s quite different to make the entirely factual observation that a woman’s conscious choices about whom to welcome into her private life and with whom to create chidren might tend to expose her to the violent tendencies of that spouse. Conflating those two is invalid.
Put another way, if you get mauled by a lion on the loose, that’s a tragedy. If you ignore the posted signs and instead hop the fence and lower yourself into the lion’s pen at the zoo, then whatever happens is on you. No sympathy.
It was sarc, dude,
a liberal is a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.
The vast majority of cops I’ve EVER known are azzwholes(and I’ve known a lot in my 60some years). Mostly hanging out in gyms/health clubs for 45 years.(One actually stashed his gat in his locker for everyone to see-and yes this low IQ wonder was later fired by the Dalton,IL po-leece dept.) I had 1 whine at me(a little Mexican guy) about how horrible the new CC law was. Many just don’t trust the average riff-raff either-they’re not SPECIAL…Bear in mind this is Illinois without a long history of legal carry. Not that the Indiana cops are much better…
Militarization of the police. More and more cops look, act, sound like, . . . and think like the military.
I don’t mean to offend you, because I appreciate your comments, but could it just be because Illinois sucks? When I think of Illionois, I picture crappy drivers, doofus deer hunters coming to WI, Chicago liberalism, and Jay Cutler. Sure there’s great pizza and hot dogs, but that wouldn’t be nearly enough for me to enjoy the state.
I haven’t had positive experiences with that state and some of the LEOs I’ve talked to near Chicago were jerks. Until they found out I am a LEO, and then I was “in.” I’ve made the decision that I will treat people as well as I can, whenever I can. A lot of big city cops sadly never come to that conclusion.
My state of CA is pretty screwed up also, but most of the cops I supervise are great guys with even-ish tempers. If they make mistakes I try to coach them the best I can to improve their technical knowledge and judgement. Part of that includes helping my guys be more pro-gun, buying AR’s, shooting tips, etc.
If I may, I’d like to apologize for anti-gun cops. If I had the power to change that nationwide, I would. As it is I takes risks to be pro-rights in an anti-rights state. It may cost me my job someday, but at least I’ll be able to live with myself.
when i think of chicago (which i generally don’t), i think of the old “untouchables” tv show. i think of mafia. i think of crime. i think of wise guys gunned down at chop houses (don’t know why anyone goes to chop houses given the likelihood of seeing/receiving mafia justice). i think of capone, nitti, st. valentine’s day. had to do some work in cicero, and always had my back to the wall, and certain knowledge of where the exits were.
I am not offended in the least Accur81. Illinois DOES suck. But Indiana is only marginally better in my view. It’s all about revenue generation and not much else. I also understand we need the po-leece. I’ve seen cops plant evidence back in my youth, kick black folks azzes(and hippies)and falsely give ME a ticket on the highway(radar BS with a stack of tickets-all for 77mph). I’m happy you’re a Christian and not a drunk on authority lunatic. So am I. Ted Cruz for America. Oh and I disagree on Illinois hunters. I’m from downstate IL and they’re pretty good.
Word up.
Why do all the trees in Wisconsin lean to the south?
Because Illinois sucks.
I may be over-reading Ms. Easter’s article, but some of the points she made were disturbing, to wit:
“Shouldn’t women be able to travel freely without worry in the 21st century?” Men not so much, I guess.
“I feel I am a good enough shot to warrant the privilege of a permit.” it shouldn’t be a privilege, and with thinking like yours, it will never be a right.
“Clearly women need protection and are a safe bet to trust with carrying weapons.” Men are a pretty safe bet too, honey.
“Statistics show women typically are not aggressors and permit carriers are not the source of gun violence.” Since most gun carriers are male, I agree that gun carriers are not the source of gun violence.
That’s a lot of second wave feminism for one article. And Easter is a Republican! Well, a California Republican anyway.
I am also in California (southern) and I just found out that in our gated community we had a number of brake ins and consequential robberies. Somewhere like 10 in the past month. I live in one of the most beautiful areas of San Diego. When I spoke to the community the other day informing my neighbors that I am armed and will fire upon any intruder, it was pleasing to note that some have come to me to get their handguns. They’re asking for my help. Nice. About fucking time.
It never ceases to tickle me when a gun owner attracts more potential owners just by making it known that they exist. I had a similar experience at work.
I had mentioned to a fellow shooter that I had just finished building my 300 blackout rifle, and was looking for another pistol. One of the people in that department was recently a victim of a burglary, and was staring down the business end of a shotgun during the robbery. The next week, I took him and about 10 others from his neighborhood to a public range. 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, 5 pistols, and over 1000 rounds later, I was making appointments to go shopping with more than half of them, and introducing them to a local CWP instructor. I felt like I made a big difference that day.
That’s EXACTLY how I felt yesterday. Like I made a difference to people by opening their eyes (as in, there ARE decent people who are balanced, rational and decent gun owners).
Surprise, violence of action, overwhelming force.
After informing your neighbors of your firearm, you only have two out of three left.
Odds are, if you ever need to draw your weapon YOU are already surprised… We carry firearms for defense, which means the element of surprise isn’t usually trending in our favor.
I get what you’re driving at, but the stats simply do NOT back up what you’re saying. There is very little to no data to reinforce concealing (or not telling about about) a firearm or otherwise.
As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file police officers support, to a great extent, our right to keep and bear arms. Don’t take my word for it. Go review the survey of more than 15,000 police officers at PoliceOne.com yourself. You will be amazed.
For example, their survey revealed,
See for yourself at:
https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
15,000 is such an absurdly small number as to be laughable. Check on how many officers NYPD has on staff, or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
From a statistical perspective, 15,000 respondents out of a population of something like 500,000 law enforcement officers is GINORMOUS. It paints an extremely reliable picture of the attitudes of the entire population.
Given a population size of 500,000, a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 2%, a valid statistical sample is 2390.
Our local police chief is full on civil disarmament. His belief is that the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen from lawful owners… Therefore, if there are no lawful owners, there are less guns to steal. The actual officers that I know on the department think differently, they just can’t express that opinion in public lest they suffer the wrath of the Chief. One actually explained how to qualify for an exemption to the local AWB so that I don’t have to store my standard cap mags off site. ( file a copy of your 03 ffl with the CLEO, they issue a letter of acceptance automatically and you meet the exemption, exemption was worded intentionally to cover modern firearms and ‘assault feeding devices’ ie standard cap mags)
Oakland Police told my mother to get a gun, just for protection from any unknown threat. They said if she shot someone on her balcony to drag them inside before calling it in. Not all cops are against civilians owning guns.
But let’s go back in time a bit. Remember when you used to see nifty little slogans like “To protect and serve” on their cars and now you don’t? The reason is because police have transitioned into law enforcement officers, and due to budget cuts, there are just not enough of them to protect you anymore. Is it up to you these days to protect yourself, and the ones that do not get renamed Victim.
When there are enough cops to “protect” you as individual, they call that a “police state”…
Exactly. And in a police state, you are routinely protected from yourself.
About half of police are bullies. The other half want to help people. I’m former law enforcement, it’s the truth.
On guns specifically it has a lot to do with how and where you grew up. Police recruits who grew up with guns usually become great police officers and also very good shooters. I personally knew a guy in academy who grew up in downtown Philly, never handled a gun, liberal, barely qualified in the academy and was a complete anti-gun person – he thought that measly 40 hours training made him some kind of expert and he was “qualified” by the government. LOL.
Memorize:
1. Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
2. Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
3. 1 and 2 are moot because unless they’re assigned as bodyguards, police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.
Police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who don’t protect THEMSELVES.
If you aren’t willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you’re just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.
Most police don’t support gun rights for two reasons: 1) They like to feel powerful. If they’re the only one with a gun, then they can make you do whatever they want (as evidenced by the non-stop stream of police brutality or officers who pull over attractive women to rape on the side of the highway). 2) Because they know that most people hate the police (for good reason) and that there’s a ticking time bomb that will eventually (it could be days / years / decades from now) result in a civil war with the police being the first to go.
Most police huh? Where did you get that information? Non-stop streams of police brutality or officers who pull over attractive women to rape on the side of the highway. Please cite your source; this is concerning since I never actually seen a police officer rape a pretty woman in the side of a highway outside of a porno.
Otherwise GFY.
Not a real surprise. I personally know a police officer who has said if he was forbidden to carry a concealed weapon that he would break the law without hesitation.
“Why isn’t there an organization called Police Officers for Responsible Gun Ownership or some such thing?”
Well, because the acronym would be PORGO. Not very catchy.
The leaders you voted for have decreed you don’t need a gun in California. That is one reason why I left California.
In Kentucky and Tennessee I see black people open carry. No one complains.
We’ve become too dependent on police overall so paying too much attention to what police chiefs say isn’t even American, it’s the view of citizens who live under dictatorships where the power of the gun rests entirely with the government. Some officers I’ve known are jealous of their ability to go in public carrying a gun and others just have had to deal with too many dirtbag citizens who routinely abuse their right to keep and bear arms.
Not losing our temper and maintaining good relations with law enforcement must be our standard of behavior. Mutual trust is what will dissolve the problem over time but we must do our part consistently and patiently. The legislatures in 42 states have expanded the right to keep and bear arms. Some states have had an improved version of the 2nd Amendment in their own constitutions for decades. “Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for their defense and that of the state.” says Michigan’s Constitution (Sec. 6). That’s unequivocal support in a state where major cities are dominated by anti-gun Democrats. (Michigan’s state motto is, “Teubor” — Latin for “I will defend.”)
The woman in the article lives in California where the Democrats have kept every bit of anti-gun sentiment in their laws. Replacing those Democrats is the major priority above all.
Here’s some more questions I’d like answered too TTAG.
Why do some Generals oppose civilian ownership of guns?
Why do some politicians oppose private ownership of guns?
Why do some lawyers oppose private ownership of guns?
Why do some bankers oppose private ownership of guns?
Why are some people stupid and illogical?
Comments are closed.