POLITICS - Cops need to listen up here.

[sore shoulder]

That more such men lived and breathed. If you are a Texan, you should be sending a thank you note of support right now.

http://www.star-telegram.com/275/story/624508.html

Asked whether he would defer to the Supreme Court if it ruled against his Second Amendment views, Patterson answered simply "no" after quipping that it was a trick question.

"I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to bear arms -- I will not do anything contrary to that," said Patterson, who as a lawmaker wrote the state's concealed handgun law.

[Pathfinder]

What does your Subject title

OT 2A. Cops need to listen up here

and the article or your commentary share?

I guess I'm missing something.

It's an interesting article about a good progun politician etc. And that's about where it ends.

[sore shoulder]

What does your Subject title

OT 2A. Cops need to listen up here

and the article or your commentary share?

I guess I'm missing something.

It's an interesting article about a good progun politician etc. And that's about where it ends.

Because cops are notorious for violating the 2A when they enforce unConstitutional state or local gun laws. Clear enough?

[O.S.O.K.]

It was clear enough to me.

If you are a law enforcement officer, you also swore and oath to uphold the constitution.

[AJMD429]

Because cops are notorious for violating the 2A when they enforce unConstitutional state or local gun laws. Clear enough?

Unfortunately, most LEO's I speak with say "I'd never do that" when I ask about enforcing a gun confiscation, yet they trip over themselves in eager anticipation of a 'drug raid' or taking down a 'wife-beater' or other 'dirtbag' when they don't seem to realize, the dispatch isn't going to say:

"Hey, go to your old buddy Joe's house, and kill him if he refuses to give up his deer rifles."

It will instead say something like:

"Armed suspect who has hostage and suspected of selling illegal machine gun parts and methampehtamines; possible child pornography charges pending."

After the guns seized, the reputation ruined, the doors kicked in, the kids traumatized with MP5's pointed at their heads by Ninja-cops, and perhaps a few 'perps' killed, it may come out that the charges were dropped, or never pursued, but the GOAL was accomplished - another pro-gun individual taken out.

LEO's I know seem not to realize they can be lied to, or perhaps they don't care. I know it would be difficult (i.e. get you fired, if not yourself criminally charged) to go against your boss, but I guess that's why I'd never make it as a cop. I'll admit I don't have what it takes to be a LEO, because I couldn't enforce victimless or unconstitutional "laws" regardless of what my superiors told me. (Heck, I can't even prescribe the crappy medications the HMO's and hospitals and insurers want me to use to facilitate their profit margins, if I know they won't actually help the patient as much as the good stuff...)

[ScottT]

Some of you boys don't understand cops any more than you understand Texans.

[Old Ironsights]

Some of you boys don't understand cops any more than you understand Texans.

I understand that that is EXACTLY the sentement of a good number of (mostly big city) Cops. All you haveto do is lurk on the "LEO" forums to see that. They say it quite plainly. They will enforce an Anti Gun/Anti-Gunowner Law, no matter how Unconstitutional, because it's "The Law".

Sad, really.

[sore shoulder]

Some of you boys don't understand cops any more than you understand Texans.

Your right Scott, I dont understand any of the cops who stole all those guns from law abiding citizens during NOLA, especially all those out of state cops. And I don't understand the cops in CA that arrest folks for the unConstitutional gun laws there on a daily basis. And I don't understand the cops here in CO that willingly ignore state law and sieze rifles from travelers, even though state law says they are not breaking the law. That one came from my platoon SGT who thought they were right, till I copied the state statutes for him. Now he says he will pass it on and inform his junior officers. Why should that even be neccessary when it's already a right granted by the Constitution? Your right, I don't understand. I'm afraid you are just too isolated from the rest of the world down there Scott. The rest of the world is not like your little bailiwick, and I suspect even the dept you used to work for ain't the same anymore either. Wish you would wake up an smell the coffee friend. Sometimes I don't understand your insistent denial of the problems we are all facing.

[Griff]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.

You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

[sore shoulder]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.

You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Except that is completely contrary to the intent of the FF and the principles of Liberty. I did not take an oath to defend whatever local jurisdictions interpretation, or the Supremes interpretation may be. I took an oath to defend The Constitution. I have every darn right to make my own decisions what the FF meant, especially when they stated it was not up for interpretation.

[Griff]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.
You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Except that is completely contrary to the intent of the FF and the principles of Liberty. I did not take an oath to defend whatever local jurisdictions interpretation, or the Supremes interpretation may be. I took an oath to defend The Constitution. I have every darn right to make my own decisions what the FF meant, especially when they stated it was not up for interpretation.

And so you do. And, reap the consquences when you might be proven wrong.

[sore shoulder]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.
You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Except that is completely contrary to the intent of the FF and the principles of Liberty. I did not take an oath to defend whatever local jurisdictions interpretation, or the Supremes interpretation may be. I took an oath to defend The Constitution. I have every darn right to make my own decisions what the FF meant, especially when they stated it was not up for interpretation.

And so you do. And, reap the consquences when you might be proven wrong.

Consequences yes. Wrong? Not at all. Be a lot easier if otherwise good folks like you didn't think the way you do about it Griff. Remember those boys who kicked the Redcoats in the crotch? They suffered consequences, but they weren't wrong.

[gary rice]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.
You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Except that is completely contrary to the intent of the FF and the principles of Liberty. I did not take an oath to defend whatever local jurisdictions interpretation, or the Supremes interpretation may be. I took an oath to defend The Constitution. I have every darn right to make my own decisions what the FF meant, especially when they stated it was not up for interpretation.

And so you do. And, reap the consquences when you might be proven wrong.

Consequences yes. Wrong? Not at all. Be a lot easier if otherwise good folks like you didn't think the way you do about it Griff. Remember those boys who kicked the Redcoats in the crotch? They suffered consequences, but they weren't wrong.

how right you are my friend.

[Blaine]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.

You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Griff, I would suggest that sometimes, it's not the law, but what someone thinks the law is; in other words, just making it up as they go along......In this process, it generally won't be taken up by higher court unless someone runs afoul of this so called law.....

[Griff]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.
You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Except that is completely contrary to the intent of the FF and the principles of Liberty. I did not take an oath to defend whatever local jurisdictions interpretation, or the Supremes interpretation may be. I took an oath to defend The Constitution. I have every darn right to make my own decisions what the FF meant, especially when they stated it was not up for interpretation.

And so you do. And, reap the consquences when you might be proven wrong.

Consequences yes. Wrong? Not at all. Be a lot easier if otherwise good folks like you didn't think the way you do about it Griff. Remember those boys who kicked the Redcoats in the crotch? They suffered consequences, but they weren't wrong.

No, they weren't, in our view of history, however, from the Crown's position, they were very wrong. A step in that direction requires a very firm conviction. And one, in fact, that wasn't shared with approximately 60% of the population of the colonies at the time. I pick my fights very carefully. I have lines drawn in the sand that one is not allowed to cross; just as I'm sure others have. I also have opinions on some subjects that I'm unwilling to share; as I'm sure others have also, many on subjects that are discussed here. Sometimes, I even break my own rules. But, I do find it interesting that you are so sure of your convictions, maybe I even envy you that a little.

[Griff]

I'll say this ONCE. A law is not "UNConstitutional" until a pertinant body of jurisprudence sez it is. It is not up to any public or private citizen to choose what laws they will or not obey without some consequence.
You are all entitled to your OPINIONS on what is unConstitutional, but until the matter has been resolved in Court, it is still the Law and must be obeyed, or the consequence will attach itself to you.

Griff, I would suggest that sometimes, it's not the law, but what someone thinks the law is; in other words, just making it up as they go along......In this process, it generally won't be taken up by higher court unless someone runs afoul of this so called law.....

Yep, you are 100% correct. I haven't found one of these fights I'm either capable of or rich enough to win yet. And, since I'm a sore loser, I have to make sure of my stances.

[AJMD429]

The Constitution (and all our other laws, for that matter) should NOT require a team of arguing lawyers and prescedent-reversing judges to "interpret" - the words in the Constitution are very plain and simple, and anyone with an 8th grade (or today's high-school) education was assumed to be readily able to understand them. ALL our laws should be (and easily could be) that plain.

The Constitution doesn't make it illegal to smoke marijuana, pee in a wetland, hire a prostitute, own a machine-gun, gamble, or any number of things that LEO's will enforce. Some of these things may be stupid, immoral, or just plain 'wrong,' but they are for the churches to decide relative to their individual members. Legislating morality is absurd, because nobody really agrees on what is 'moral.' Crimes require real 'victims' - not abstract 'harms to society' or 'potential dangers.'

Once everything becomes a matter for 'the courts' it becomes politicized and murky, and the more our laws shift with the wind, the more reason our young people just quit caring about what is right/wrong, and stick to 'what they can get away with' - just like politicians do. I think that ironically, before our laws started being twisted in pretense of enforcing some sort of 'morality' people had more respect for the law (and behaved more 'morally'), and now they just figure it is all a ridiculous joke. That is not good, because the kid who gets in the habit of ignoring laws because laws which say you can't smoke pot but you can get roaring drunk every night and belittle your own kids are stupid, tend to assume that other laws are also stupid, even ones which actually make sense, like those against theft, murder, driving impaired, etc.

Now we are in the absurd situation where it is 'illegal' for the Boy Scouts to refuse a homosexual man a job as scout leader, yet legal to arrest someone who has one too many non-U.S. made parts on an SKS rifle.
So, who can respect the "law" these days...?

[Hobie]

One can choose not to respect the laws passed by representatives elected by one's community. One can choose not to respect officials who are either personally less than what you'd like them to be or don't perform their job as you see fit. To paint with the broad brush all police officers who try and do make many decisions every day to act in ways that are less than authoritarian as the near equivalents of goose-stepping Gestapo agents is ridiculous.

[Sarge]

Gentlemen,

Many of us have taken that oath, and taken that particular aspect of it dead-seriously, before many of you were big enough to pee and turn over gravel. Many of us were handing 'concealed weapons' back to minor traffic violators, instead of arresting them for a so-called felony, long before the constitutional right to carry a weapon in a car was acknowledged in this state.

So you listen up. You can't tell me a darn thing about upholding my oath.

I'll let you in on another little secret. Copshops are hiring everywhere, and all the time. So jump in your superman pajamas, take the oath, pin on a badge and show us how it's done. In just a few more years, I'll be able to sit back on my haunches and bitch about the way you handle the job.

At least my complaining will be based on something besides armchair theory.

[505stevec]

As a police officer I find it absurd when someone who claims to love the Constitution blames those who have been given the Constitutional Authority to enforce the law of the land. These same people are waiting in their paranoia for the "jack booted gestapo thugs" to break in the door. Meanwhile they do nothing to protect their community by getting invoved at the local level. Oh they will start the militias and "anti" groups but they will not help the community. If you state is going "left" blame yourself not LE. get involved with the community

[sore shoulder]

As a police officer I find it absurd when someone who claims to love the Constitution blames those who have been given the Constitutional Authority to enforce the law of the land.

As a citizen who you work for, I find it absurd you think I can't point out what is undoubtably the overwhelming public perception. We are not terrorizing ourselves you know. If you don't like the perception, then change it.

So if I'm not a cop, I'm not allowed to make observations, observations that include facts you all like to ignore? Yea, no seperate class of citizen there. You guys need to come up with a new tune, armchair quarterback is getting old and tiresome. Unfortunately for you, under the 1st amendment I can still bitch all I want, whether you like it or not. And the fact you think I don't have the right is very interesting.

Just so's you all know, I have been offered a job with the local SO many times over the years by my good friend who is now the Undersherriff. My problem is I don't like half the people on his dept, I am absolutely opposed to victimless crimes, and can't swear to uphold the Constitution, then violate it. I'm currently serving my country, and I figure thats enough.

[piller]

Just my 2 cents worth, but you should all be aware that if you are on a jury and a law comes into the trial which you consider to be unconstitutional, Jury Nullification is an option. This effectively removes that law from being enforced or used until it is reviewed and ruled upon by a court of appeals. If the court of appeals agrees with the Nullification, then law is they removed from the books, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. These courts may be State of Federal depending on the circumstance. I do not have any burning desire to nullify a law, but if I am on a jury and the situation demands it, I will do what is right.

[Sarge]

As a police officer I find it absurd when someone who claims to love the Constitution blames those who have been given the Constitutional Authority to enforce the law of the land.

As a citizen who you work for, I find it absurd you think I can't point out what is undoubtably the overwhelming public perception. We are not terrorizing ourselves you know. If you don't like the perception, then change it.

So if I'm not a cop, I'm not allowed to make observations, observations that include facts you all like to ignore? Yea, no seperate class of citizen there. You guys need to come up with a new tune, armchair quarterback is getting old and tiresome. Unfortunately for you, under the 1st amendment I can still bitch all I want, whether you like it or not. And the fact you think I don't have the right is very interesting.

Just so's you all know, I have been offered a job with the local SO many times over the years by my good friend who is now the Undersherriff. My problem is I don't like half the people on his dept, I am absolutely opposed to victimless crimes, and can't swear to uphold the Constitution, then violate it. I'm currently serving my country, and I figure thats enough.

Never did I say, insinuate, suggest or intend that you shouldn't enjoy the exercise of your 1st amendment rights- or any of the others.

I just exercised mine a little too. Hope you don't mind.

The fact that you're serving IS enough. The difference is that I give you the benefit of the doubt, and don't automatically lump you in with Tim McVeigh or Benedict Arnold- both of whom served well at one time in their lives.

The legislation of criminal acts, victimless or not, is the purview of legislators. As I already mentioned, many of us will not cross certain lines which we see as violating the constitution. But don't expect your local donut-muncher (and I like a good donut as well as anybody) to undo what your legislators have screwed up.

As Scott noted, much of what we do has to be experienced to be understood. TV shows like 'Cops' present us in the worst possible light. We also have to divorce ourselves from 'the perception' as you put it, because almost everything we do offends somebody. So we write it off as coming with the territory.

And finally...I can't say that I have 'liked' half the people on any job I ever worked at. If you find such a place, and it pays well- send me an application.

[sore shoulder]

As a police officer I find it absurd when someone who claims to love the Constitution blames those who have been given the Constitutional Authority to enforce the law of the land.

As a citizen who you work for, I find it absurd you think I can't point out what is undoubtably the overwhelming public perception. We are not terrorizing ourselves you know. If you don't like the perception, then change it.

So if I'm not a cop, I'm not allowed to make observations, observations that include facts you all like to ignore? Yea, no seperate class of citizen there. You guys need to come up with a new tune, armchair quarterback is getting old and tiresome. Unfortunately for you, under the 1st amendment I can still bitch all I want, whether you like it or not. And the fact you think I don't have the right is very interesting.

Just so's you all know, I have been offered a job with the local SO many times over the years by my good friend who is now the Undersherriff. My problem is I don't like half the people on his dept, I am absolutely opposed to victimless crimes, and can't swear to uphold the Constitution, then violate it. I'm currently serving my country, and I figure thats enough.

Never did I say, insinuate, suggest or intend that you shouldn't enjoy the exercise of your 1st amendment rights- or any of the others.

I just exercised mine a little too. Hope you don't mind.

The fact that you're serving IS enough. The difference is that I give you the benefit of the doubt, and don't automatically lump you in with Tim McVeigh or Benedict Arnold- both of whom served well at one time in their lives.

The legislation of criminal acts, victimless or not, is the purview of legislators. As I already mentioned, many of us will not cross certain lines which we see as violating the constitution. But don't expect your local donut-muncher (and I like a good donut as well as anybody) to undo what your legislators have screwed up.

As Scott noted, much of what we do has to be experienced to be understood. TV shows like 'Cops' present us in the worst possible light. We also have to divorce ourselves from 'the perception' as you put it, because almost everything we do offends somebody. So we write it off as coming with the territory.

And finally...I can't say that I have 'liked' half the people on any job I ever worked at. If you find such a place, and it pays well- send me an application.

Sarge, in general I would say if a cop is a member here, then he is probably a good cop, but my perception, which is based on 42 years of life and a few years on a fire dept responding mostly to accidents, is cops tend to treat the public in a condescending manner, sometimes with outright disrespect. I know the job sucks at times, but thats no excuse to treat citizens poorly. It's the officer who holds himself above this that impresses me. I used to get very weary of watching a deputy treat someone who went off the road in the winter like he was an idiot, and writing them a ticket even though there was no damage except to their own vehicle. That is wrong. I also made sure the deputy knew it on more than one occasion, and I heard the same response every time, "just doing my job."

I hear the term a few bad apples a lot, but it seems to me it's more like a few good apples. I have yet to hear one cop that witnessed what happened in NO speak out, not one, and there were hundreds from all over the country. That was a cross section of this countries police depts right there in action obeying an illegal order without question.

[RSY]

TV shows like 'Cops' present us in the worst possible light.

That's a strange statement. I always felt that show painted y'all in a neutral-to-positive light, actually.

[RSY]

I have yet to hear one cop that witnessed what happened in NO speak out, not one, and there were hundreds from all over the country.

I'll have to back you up on that one. I appraised a STPSO deputy's house and we talked about that time. He was running one of their boats on the Lake near Slidell and down on Irish Bayou and grabbed some guns. He sheepishly claimed the "following orders" thing.

I could tell that he could tell that I wasn't too pleased about what happened out there (could it have been something I said??? ) . Amazingly, he seemed to actually feel embarrassed about it.

In STPSO's defense, Sheriff Jack pretty quickly realized they were doing wrong and had his deputies cease the confiscations. He was the only one in the area that did that, though.

scott

[Griff]

TV shows like 'Cops' present us in the worst possible light.

That's a strange statement. I always felt that show painted y'all in a neutral-to-positive light, actually.

No, I gotta agree with Sarge, I felt that it showed the bad or incompetent, far out of porportion to the good.

[Sarge]

Sarge, in general I would say if a cop is a member here, then he is probably a good cop, but my perception, which is based on 42 years of life and a few years on a fire dept responding mostly to accidents, is cops tend to treat the public in a condescending manner, sometimes with outright disrespect. I know the job sucks at times, but thats no excuse to treat citizens poorly. It's the officer who holds himself above this that impresses me. I used to get very weary of watching a deputy treat someone who went off the road in the winter like he was an idiot, and writing them a ticket even though there was no damage except to their own vehicle. That is wrong.

I know that stuff happens and all I can say is this- I never allowed it in the Dept's where I was a Sgt. I also have to add that there is a point where the citizen chooses where the situation is going, and if they choose poorly the consequences will range from unpleasant to fatal. I hate it when that happens.

I also made sure the deputy knew it on more than one occasion, and I heard the same response every time, "just doing my job."

I hear the term a few bad apples a lot, but it seems to me it's more like a few good apples. I have yet to hear one cop that witnessed what happened in NO speak out, not one, and there were hundreds from all over the country. That was a cross section of this countries police depts right there in action obeying an illegal order without question.

Pardner, I wasn't in New Orleans and I wouldn't have played that stuff if I had gone. When I found out what was happening there, I was as disgusted as any other freedom-loving man would be. What's done is done and the courts will have to fix it now.

[ace1001]

Many of you have mentioned the oaths you took. Read Mathew 5:33. I think Jesus was against oaths because it bound you to a promise regardless of morality.
I think it interesting that in this seperation of church and state mentality, the only time they haul a Bible out is to do something that Jesus very clearly forbid.
When I stand before God in judgement, I hope I have something better than, "I was just following orders....just doing my job". Ace

[Jarhead]

Very interesting subject matter....

I've been around longer than 42 years and happen to respect 98% of those who wear a police uniform. Not to say that I haven't had a run in with Cops, especially when I was young and fresh out of the Marine Corps. I was arrested for "fighting" and raising hell when I was in my 20s, but the times I did get arrested, I deserved it!

Yea, I relize there are a few "arrogant idiots" out there...but most of the ones I've met don't wear a badge! I get along fine with the Cops in my neck of the woods..They keep an eye on my farm when I'm not there and invite me over to shoot and drink coffee whith them.

"Attitude is Everything!"

[Travis Morgan]

Just my 2 cents worth, but you should all be aware that if you are on a jury and a law comes into the trial which you consider to be unconstitutional, Jury Nullification is an option. This effectively removes that law from being enforced or used until it is reviewed and ruled upon by a court of appeals. If the court of appeals agrees with the Nullification, then law is they removed from the books, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. These courts may be State of Federal depending on the circumstance. I do not have any burning desire to nullify a law, but if I am on a jury and the situation demands it, I will do what is right.

Would you mind explaining "Jury nullification"? I've heard the term before, but don't understand it.

[Travis Morgan]

TV shows like 'Cops' present us in the worst possible light.

That's a strange statement. I always felt that show painted y'all in a neutral-to-positive light, actually.

Nearly every episode shows some idiot with a badge holding a gun, saying, "That's one more off the street." I especially loved it when the same thing happened on "Dallas SWAT", and it turned out that, despite doing recon and surveillance, having planning meeting, floorplans, and maps, they raided the WRONG darned HOUSE!

[piller]

Jury Nullification is when a Jury unanimously agrees that a law is unjust or unconstitutional and by informing the Judge, nullifies that law. It must go to a Court of Appeals or it becomes null and void.

[Old Ironsights]

Would you mind explaining "Jury nullification"? I've heard the term before, but don't understand it.

http://fija.org/

Basicly, it's the jury saying somthing like:

Yes, this is Chicago.
Yes, Handguns are "Illegal"
Yes, this woman used an illegal handgun to commit homicide in shooting her rapist.

But we refuse to convict her of anything because the law is unjust/unconstitutional.

The jury "nullified" the aplicable laws.

Governmentarians hate this Foundational Principle of Jurisprudence so much that Judges will hold attorneys in Contempt for mentioning it.

Bringing it up during jury selection or voi dire is the fastest way off a Jury short of a coronary.

[TCB in TN]

As a police officer I find it absurd when someone who claims to love the Constitution blames those who have been given the Constitutional Authority to enforce the law of the land. These same people are waiting in their paranoia for the "jack booted gestapo thugs" to break in the door. Meanwhile they do nothing to protect their community by getting invoved at the local level. Oh they will start the militias and "anti" groups but they will not help the community. If you state is going "left" blame yourself not LE. get involved with the community

As a tax paying, good ole boy, who don't hurt no body, and don't want anyone to hurt me, teacher, father, and active politically individual, I find it absurd that anytime a cop who does something horrific, is blasted as a "jack booted gestapo thug" then plenty of cops who swear they are not, come out of the wood work to protest. If you are not that way, then why protest? You would certainly be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt from those in the community you serve if you take a position that allows you to condem those bad apples along with the rest of us, and then you present yourself and others like you as the "good guys". BTW I have family and friends in LE and happen to have the greatest of respect and admiration for them, however I have known plenty of small time crooks who have slimed their way into a badge along the way too. My experience pushes me into my Ronnie Reagan mode, trust but verify, especially with those who wear a badge and carry a gun! With great power comes great responsibility. I just want to see an appropriate amount of accountability for those individuals who have such power!

[BruceB]

...my perception, which is based on 42 years of life and a few years on a fire dept...

Fireman. That explains everything.

[sore shoulder]

...my perception, which is based on 42 years of life and a few years on a fire dept...

Fireman. That explains everything.

Nope, just a volunteer, like everyone else on that dept. Very few were certified. I was general contractor at the time.

[AmBraCol]

And one more locked.

It's time to get civil in our way of addressing each other.