Background Checks for Ammo

[Patrick Henry]

All lives quit mattering when abortion was “legalized”. 

[Garufa]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Henry said:

All lives quit mattering when abortion was “legalized”. 

Yeah, outlawing it will cure all of society’s problems.

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, Links2k said:

At the end of the day the individuals working law enforcement signed up for the job.  Some may have felt it was their life’s calling, others may have done it for pay and benefits in larger cities or just a transitional job for others.  Not one was forced into what’s going to become an increasingly  more difficult job. 

As a former officer, is this behavior acceptable to you simply because you don’t like how criminals, protesters and politicians are behaving or because you don’t agree with their politics?

This isn’t cop bashing.  I have a cousin on Baltimore P.D., a friend who is a lieutenant on M.P.D., a cousin who retired from M.P.D. less than two years ago, and a friend who died in a boating accident several years ago who was a sergeant on M.P.D. at the time. I could name more. It’s a thankless job that needs special people to do it.

I have officers that I’ve known since high school who won’t speak to me anymore because I ask questions like this. It is in no way an unfair question to ask.  

When you were active, did you sign up to serve only those you agree with politically? I ask the same of young war fighters when they decide that politics is more important to them than following lawful orders and performing their duties with integrity.

I know cops are human, but it’s my opinion that when you put on the badge, you shouldn’t make decisions based upon which citizens lean left and which lean right politically.  Decisions about how to handle calls shouldn’t be based upon being butt hurt over how politicians and chain of command decide to implement policy.  If this is the case, those officers are cheating themselves and the taxpayers.

Oh, I’m not saying you should feel sorry for them because of what’s happening, or that they are justified in their failure to act. If you have read my others posts I have said I believe (or hope) that eventually those failing to act will be held accountable.

I don’t think you are intentionally cop bashing. you are just agreeing with a narrative that is a lie. Do you think cops are hunting blacks? Did all your cop friends and relatives treat blacks different than whites. Of course, I realize that’s no more a fair question of you than me commenting on how blacks feel. I don’t know what its like to be black and unless you have worked the streets as a cop, you don’t know what that’s like, or how your friends treated people on the street.

I feel sorry for us, and the overwhelming percentage of cops that do their job properly. I am a law and order type that hates violence. Thugs that threaten people with violence or commit violence against them should go to prison. That applies to everyone, cops included. But they are dealt with on a case by case basis. I have zero compassion for someone that threatens or attacks a citizen or a cop with violence and gets killed….Zero. No one forced them to take that path. Some cases are questionable, and we have a legal system to deal with that; they will be tried by a jury of their peers.

As I’ve said here many times prior to all this happening. We don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system.  You will get exactly as much justice as you can afford. Buts that not based on race. Its based on rich and poor. If you are poor and can’t afford a good attorney the system will mow you over. It happens everyday to whites also. I have plenty of ideas on how to address Police issues, but I don’t know how to address the issue of any race not having access to the top legal representation.

I made no judgments based on a person politics. And I have no idea why a friend of yours wouldn’t want to answer that question. I’m more than willing to answer or discuss any question anyone has. You may not like my answer, and you may not agree with my viewpoint, but I’m willing to discuss it here or in person with anyone.

 However, my point was that as qualified people turn away from law enforcement, and who could blame them; you will get a lower caliber of Officer.  I remember when Nashville Metro PD said they couldn’t get enough candidates locally that could pass a background check so they were instituting a more vigorous out of state search. They only way they will be able to get around that is lowering their standards.

When cops use justified force against criminals; their department and the public should back them, and that’s what happens in most cases. When force isn’t justified; they should be charged the same as anyone else. But they sure shouldn’t be charged because of the race of the person they used force against; that’s racism in its purest form.

Every shooting whether it be a cop, or a citizen protecting themselves or their family is different. It all boils down to a “reasonable person fearing immediate danger of death or great bodily harm”. The “reasonable person” standard is a Judge or jury, I don’t see how that can change.

Do some procedures need to change? Absolutely. But they are generally by Department. Not all Police Departments are equal.

[ReeferMac]

16 hours ago, Links2k said:

Decisions about how to handle calls shouldn’t be based upon being butt hurt over how politicians and chain of command decide to implement policy.  If this is the case, those officers are cheating themselves and the taxpayers.

Thanks for sharing Links2k, I'm glad you elaborated to your original comment.

 

I do agree with your stance in principle. As with many professions (teachers come to mind?), if you can't do the job right, time to find another one!

 

Does the same argument apply to district attorneys? Say you agree with BLM protesters, does that give one the right to selectively enforce the law as written on the books? You can get off of a looting, rioting, or assault charges in some jurisdictions, but not others, based on the political inclinations of the mayor and DA. Is it not the jury's job to determine guilt or innocence (for which they don't even get a paycheck)?

 

The apathy that we are talking about is directly caused by the above. Why bother putting yourself in harms way for a paycheck, when the person who's paycheck is based on their ability to prosecute said arrestee, willfully and deliberately (*for political reasons*) refuses to do their job?

 

Lack of evidence? Sure, don't prosecute.

Improper procedures? Sure, don't prosecute.

No Miranda rights? Damn well better not prosecute....

 

Agree with protesters political bent?

Nope, sorry, his ass still belongs in jail.

 

Just my 2 cents. I don't speak for others, but think many feel the same way. It is what's at the root of much that is dividing our nation today, and I thank you for engaging in rational discourse about an emotional topic! This kind of peaceful debate is a cornnerstone of modern intellectual societies. This is how we move forward on touchy subjects, by being polite and articulating our opinions and feelings.

 

- K

[DaveTN]

44 minutes ago, ReeferMac said:

Thanks for sharing Links2k, I'm glad you elaborated to your original comment.

I do agree with your stance in principle. As with many professions (teachers come to mind?), if you can't do the job right, time to find another one!

Does the same argument apply to district attorneys? Say you agree with BLM protesters, does that give one the right to selectively enforce the law as written on the books? You can get off of a looting, rioting, or assault charges in some jurisdictions, but not others, based on the political inclinations of the mayor and DA. Is it not the jury's job to determine guilt or innocence (for which they don't even get a paycheck)?

The apathy that we are talking about is directly caused by the above. Why bother putting yourself in harms way for a paycheck, when the person who's paycheck is based on their ability to prosecute said arrestee, willfully and deliberately (*for political reasons*) refuses to do their job?

Lack of evidence? Sure, don't prosecute.

Improper procedures? Sure, don't prosecute.

No Miranda rights? Damn well better not prosecute....

Agree with protesters political bent?

Nope, sorry, his ass still belongs in jail.

Just my 2 cents. I don't speak for others, but think many feel the same way. It is what's at the root of much that is dividing our nation today, and I thank you for engaging in rational discourse about an emotional topic! This kind of peaceful debate is a cornnerstone of modern intellectual societies. This is how we move forward on touchy subjects, by being polite and articulating our opinions and feelings.

- K

DA’s are elected and they do not answer to anyone but the voters. They cannot be fired for not doing their job. They can be impeached, but without criminal acts; that almost impossible.

Sheriffs are also elected and usually do not answers to Mayors or city councils. Police Chiefs usually answer to Mayors or city government. Depending of course on how state laws are setup. The Chief Law Enforcement Officers need to be held responsible when buildings are being burned and people are being hurt in criminal action.

Miranda is a whole separate discussion. Probably one of the most talked about and least understood practices in law enforcement. Rights come with responsibility and people should understand them.

[ReeferMac]

14 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

DA’s are elected and they do not answer to anyone but the voters. They cannot be fired for not doing their job.

How they got there is irrelevant. Its a job, same as garbage men and ditch diggers. You were elected to enforce the laws on the books, not as your political preference dictates. Same for cops. Voluntarily put yourself in that position. If you're willing to let your personal opinions affect whether you do your job or not, you shouldn't be in that position. I believe that was Link2ks point?

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by ReeferMac