"Potheads are losers - We're doing you a favor"

[RogueLeader]

the supreme court ruled that the people do NOT have the right to possess a weapon in their homes for private use

Wrong, in United States v. Miller the Supreme Court ruled that the "militia" refered to in the Second Amendment is composed of all civilians.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they (p.179)were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion

In other words private citizens have more of a right to weapons than a soldier does.

No.. actually you do not, because its a federal law, meaning the states cannot override it.

You miss the point of Constitutional law entirely. The United States does not HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS THAT REGULATE DRUGS. Therefore any federal laws that attempt to do so are null and void.

weapons that a civilian can easily get, they get AR-15s

Many states ban the sales of assault rifles. A civilian in California is not supposed to own an AR-15, although a police officer can use one to kill black people he doesn't like at will.

Education is still controlled by the states... BA limits are still state decided, interstate commerce isnt controlled by the Federal Government either, it is taxed. Thats true.. the south didnt want the federal government from having control, because 88% of their money was made thru slavery... and if they said "no, you cant own slaves" they would lose out big time

If education is controlled by states why do we have a Department of Education in the federal government? BA limits were mandated by Congress, any state not using the .08 limit gets money restricted to it. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. The South wanted to leave the Union because the federal government was too strong.

Where are you getting this information? Because if people were killed accidentally that would be malpractice, so are you saying that 120,000 doctors/nurses were fired that year as well? 1500 accidental gun deaths? are you kidding me? the lowest number of accidental gun deaths since 1977 has been 78,000 in 1982

That is more gun control advocate bull****. There has never in any year in the United States even been half that number of TOTAL gun deaths. Last year was a relativly high gun death year with 30,000 total deaths by firearm. You must be using some very wierd logic to say that of 30000 gun deaths, 78000 were accidental.
And no, accidental deaths are not malpractice unless there was a systemic lapse in judgement that could have easily been avoided.

uh......no..... the cause of the majority of crime in the united states is the fact that drugs are not legal

I completely agree. But cops, in my experience are largely corrupt people, and nothing more than the state's whores, more concerned about their jobs than doing what is legal.

no.. a police officer can not barge into a house unless hes under hot pursuit. If he has no warrent, he can not come in, plain and simple

No, cops can and do do exactly this. They arn't supposed to but they do.

actually.. no.. the average police officer is not armed with any of that, he has a radio and a sidearm. Criminals can easily buy an AK-47 at a gun show and alter it to be full-auto. You make it seem like every cop in the US has an assault rifle, and a tank.. no.. not at all

Nearly every police department in the United States has automatic rifles. If I can't own one, why can they?

A police officer will not search your house if he has no search warrent, if he does, he violated your rights and anything he found cannot be used as evidence against you

You put way to much trust in cops. Warrantless searches are not uncommon and if a cop does find something in a warrantless search he can ask a judge for an after the fact warrant and make it legal.

I resent that comment, my father was deeply envolved in stopping illegal drug trade from south america. I know for a fact that we seize over 65 million dollars in illegal drugs from central/south america every year. On top of that, do you expect us to send police officers to stop illegal traffic in a foreign country? Of course not, that is not our country, we send DEA agents there to advise their respective govts, but we do not have the right to arrest citizens not from our borders

We do get involved in the South. And the results are not good: corrupt governments only gain power (in Columbia they burn rebel cocaine facilities but the government produces cocaine itself) and we murder tourists (the missionary shot down by forces under CIA command is a well known example).

 

[Elite_Soldier]

<i>actually.. no.. the average police officer is not armed with any of that, he has a radio and a sidearm. Criminals can easily buy an AK-47 at a gun show and alter it to be full-auto. You make it seem like every cop in the US has an assault rifle, and a tank.. no.. not at all.</i>

Every cop in the United States is issued either an assault rifle, shotgun or submachinegun. EVERY ONE. There is not a police department in the world without a shotgun for each one of its cops, and you would be hard pressed to find some without submachineguns/assault rifles. Criminals can just as easily buy a high powered AK-47 at a gunshow as a civilian can, and statistics prove that this isn't their preferred method of obtaining weapons anyway. And no, the average police offer isn't armed with only a radio and sidearm. Most patrol cars have Remington shotguns in the back (or Benellis... depends on the state, but doesn't really matter), and smaller stature officers are usually issued Mp5 submachineguns.

<i>no.. a police officer can not barge into a house unless hes under hot pursuit. If he has no warrent, he can not come in, plain and simple. Um... ive met a lot of cops, and ive never heard them say anything similar to that. In fact many cops oppose gun control, Ie the POAGC. 11%? So 11% of the population of the united states is being shot and killed by police officers? No.. accidental police shootings are less common than triples in baseball. Elite, yes cops have access to assault rifles...what is your point?</i>

Read the beginning post to this thread. Justified entry? Hell no. Illegal breaking and entering? Yes. 11% of the things cops shoot at end up being innocent civilians. This proves they have less responsibility than a civilian.

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).12 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."13

Courtesy of http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Lets give cops assault rifles, so now that instead of 15 bullets (out of which about 1 will hit an innocent) they can have 30 full auto bullets, so now 2 hit people. That error rate is already too damn high, judging that civilians only have a 2% chance of an innocent casualty. So you can trust a cop with an assault rifle, but not a civilian? I don't understand. As to the triples in baseball, I can't really comment on that, judging that I don't watch nearly enough baseball

<i>A police officer will not search your house if he has no search warrent, if he does, he violated your rights and anything he found cannot be used as evidence against you. If you feel a police officer is violating your rights, you have every right to press charges against him. You make it seem like these cops are untouchable, and they arent.</i>

Cops search homes all the time without warrants. Sure, they <b>supposedly</b> can't use what they find against the suspect in a court of law, but who is stopping them? The suspect?

Yes, I do have every right to press charges against the cop. I also have the right to shoot him the second he illegally takes one foot into my house. I don't have to let him in either. Breaking and entering is a crime, and you are allowed to use self defense in case such a situation arises. Police are not above the law. They are civilians, like everyone else, with high powered weapons. They can be just as justifiably shot as a burglar entering your house. Maybe they'll think next time before illegally barging in? And they are very much untouchable for the most part. I'd like to see a statistic on how many complaints of officers are issued in a year. Than I'd like to see how many get paid any attention too. Furthermore, I would like to see how many cops actually get formall indicted for their crimes. I will find a statistic later...

<i>I resent that comment, my father was deeply envolved in stopping illegal drug trade from south america. I know for a fact that we seize over 65 million dollars in illegal drugs from central/south america every year. On top of that, do you expect us to send police officers to stop illegal traffic in a foreign country? Of course not, that is not our country, we send DEA agents there to advise their respective govts, but we do not have the right to arrest citizens not from our borders.</i>

Kudos to your father. Why do you resent the comment? It is true, for the most part our government itself isn't doing much. It targets the small fry, not the major pushers. For what reasons I have no idea.

My point exactly on why we shouldn't send police officers down there. If they don't need to fight these huge traffickers with automatic weapons, and trained personnel, why the hell do the cops need these things? Again, overfunding for the police. So this proves that the cops have <b>absolutely</b> no need for their highpowered weapons. Why do they need more than 10+ men in full body armor, with a tactical tank, assault rifles and helicopters with IR gear to stop some odd 3 crooks inside of a bank? And to add insult to injury, the screw these attempts to. I'll try to find that story on that dumbass sniper who shot a crook, and the crook lived. Than he and his 2 comrades proceeded to waste the hostages. Great work. You'd figure with all that high tech gear and such they'd have the brainpower to use them.

 

[RogueLeader]

11% of the things cops shoot at end up being innocent civilians

Only 11, I thought it was more.
Anyhow, Rux, you complain about the risk of gun ownership (accidentally shooting a family member), but it is more likely that a police officer will shoot your family member than you. That is why we have guns: so you can shoot them first.

 

[Dank]

Wow this thread really went crazy ! I think you all have some good points, but Rogue Leader is still m4h h3r0 !

 

[RavenStarSinger]

I don't have a lot of statistics . . .

But I DO have my opinions, and what I know from personal experience. . . Cops go overboard ALL the time. I was walking alone with some friends along the B&M rails thru downtown Exeter, which at the time was public property, and was a well-traveled area since it was the easiest way to get to Gerry's Convenience store on Lincoln street if you lived on Front Street. While we were walking, our group was confronted by two officers patrolling the tracks, looking for underaged drinkers. The officers stopped us, and asked us some questions, mostly about what we were doing there, where we were going, where we came from (this was broad daylight, bout 3:30 or so in the afternoon). We were completely cooperative with them, even when they asked us to turn out our pockets, and then patted us down (which I realized later they could not legally do without a reason). The officers, Officer Nye and Officer Kirkpatrick, then confiscated my pocket knife, which was completely legal. I tried NUMEROUS times to get my knife back, and I was never able to. This, I later discovered, equated to illegal search and seizure, as 1)they had no right to make us turn out our pockets, and 2) they had no right to seize something which I was legally, by local, state, and federal law, entitled to carry.
Again, Officer Nye (who harrassed me often) once pulled me over for no reason at all. He looked at my registration for a car which I had purchased only two hours before, and ticketed me for non-registration AND non-inspection (in NH, you can't inspect a vehicle until it is registered, I know this as I am an NH Licensed Inspection Mechanic). According to NH law (I'll look this one up eventually, for those who like legal jargon) I can legally drive a vehicle I purchased after town office hours until 1 hour after the office next opens. This means, if I purchased the car at 4:50 pm (the office closes at 4:45, weird, eh?) July 3rd, and the office is closed the fourth, I can legally drive that car unregistered until 8 am on July 5th (office opens at 7 am in Exeter). YET, I was still ticketed, and because of a law in NH that discriminates the age group between 16 and 21, I lost my license for 65 days. However, it took me OVER two years to get it back. In NH, a driver under 21 who is ticketed for any moving violation AUTOMATICALLY has their license suspended, ON THE SPOT. First offense - 20 days, second offense - 45 days, third offense - 90 days, after that you could lose it indefinately. Automatically. On the spot. Can you say "guilty before proven innocent"? Also, when I threatened to file a lawsuit against the state of NH for failure to comply with the civil liberties acts of the late 60's (those that say that no state or federal law may be put into effect which discriminates in any way against any person or persons on base of race, age, religion, etc etc). I was told that I was a stupid child who knew nothing about the law, and that they would counter-sue me for damages until my great-grandchildren were in debt for life. They told me that "driving is a priveledge, not a right" and I responded to them that, although driving IS a priveledge, it is a RIGHT to be treated equally under the law once I have attained that priveledge, and is ridulous to target anyone with harsher laws based on any one trait of the person involved. People would find it ridiculous if they were to say that black people or chinese people would have to spend $100 for failure to signal, while caucasions only have to pay $25. I cited this example, and the state's legal advisor nodded and agreed. She was then stupid enough to ask me how this could be related . . . I now believe that it is not only the police who are stupid cows of the beaurocratic state. Essentially speaking, my lack of transportation was what inevitably kept me from pushing the lawsuit - - I couldn't afford it, because I could not work.

What it comes down to, is that the POLICE are not corrupt, the OFFICERS are. The idea itself, in principle, is a good one, but in practice people often end up abusing their power. The state legislation has obviously overstepped boundaries by passing the "Under 20 Law", and I'm not the only to think that. From what I understand, there is an action to have this brought to the Supreme Court to have it overturned on the grounds that the law in unconstitutional. Plenty of people have signed that petition, including me, before I left the state. If it goes to pass, I will be happy, although it won't get me my time and legal fees back. Mebbe a civil action to repair damages would work! Let's SUE their asses and hit them where it hurts - - their WALLETS!

 

[RavenStarSinger]

::grunting::

Stupid thing . . . no matter how many times I edit the post to say "walking along" it turns into "walking alone". You get the idea.

 

[Elite_Soldier]

Raven has just served to prove my point. Alot of police officers are just plain assholes. They really enjoy their job too much. As it is a human instinct, at some levels I can't blame them. I mean, if someone gave me a pistol (scratch that, how about assault rifles and body armor?), I would love to play god too, especially if almost an entire government was backing me up.

That officer is harassing you. Sadly, you can't really do much about it. You could complain, but you would have to complain to *gasp* the police department, who look after their own. And its true, although driving is a priviledge, it is also a <b>right</b> shared by many Americans.

New Hampshires legal advisor doesn't sound too smart. They figure that all cops are good people, and all of them should be given the weapons. I say cops are human. Humans make mistakes. Humans abuse power, especially when they have it. Although government officials and cops themselves would refuse to admit it, they get a real kick outta their job. Yes, there are some dedicated individuals out there dedicated to the people, and the people entirely, and would give their all to see people happy. I salute these people. Sadly enough, there aren't enough people like this to justify a massive police force (filled to the brim with idiots... though not everyone). That is why the whole police force needs reorganization. Instead of major crimes such as murder and rape being solved, cops will go out and arrest people for minor drug offences, and mercilessly hunt down tax evaders and the like. I mean jeez, the last time I there were a much greater quantity of crimes of much more extreme nature. Why not go after those guys instead? Maybe you can bring all that heavy armor, tanks and assault rifles against the real bad guys, and not some small time dope dealer (if he deals at all).

 

[Eyes-Only]

I can speak for my exp. and that is all (I am not a big guy on documents that say blah blah and blah blah because you show one that says one thing and someone will show you another that contradicts it......plus there is how one interpretes said stat, document, etc)


As a Canine officer the only weapons I have access too is as follows


1) PR (nightstick)
2) Pepper spray
3) Glock 17 (My sidearm)
4) Shotgun (in car locked)
5) Mojoe (dog and I put him as weapon cause hey he can be)

Nowhere in there is a AR15 or MP5. I will also say I have access to the Heli. during hot pursuit if avail.

I can also speak for my department in the fact ALL complaints are followed by IA (internal affairs) but MANY are dimissed the same day (seems many dont understand there is a camera in the car) and many are false or they thought we acted unjustly. Many of you sound as though all police officers want to rape you and take away every right you have so we can go home and look in the mirror while beating off knowing we have the power of the gov. behind us. I can tell you some may but I for one dont. Yes I arrest for having pot on you....to bad for you really it is my job to enforce the law and to serve and protect. How am I serving you by arresting you for "just pot" Im not really but it is a law. I cant tell you how many Domestics we get a day. Some of you tell of your stories when Off. Mac harassed you and how he was mean and cruel to you......and who knows you might be telling the truth and he was an a** and thats to bad because those cops give police a bad name.......let me ask you this how do you say Police should A) Hired (meaning what kinda checks would you do on BG and the like) B) How would you handle the 100s of complaints that come in (a very high % of which are false or they thought it was harrassment) C) How would you with your wisdom make police better?

 

[RogueLeader]

Raven, you shouldn't have done what the officer asked. Never cooperate with the police, it will make matters worse. If you had something that the officers did not like you could have been arrested and it could have been used against you in court. A police officer has no legal right to force you to speak. Only a judge can do that. If you ever questioned by the police, whether just out on the streets or you've been arrested and they are interrogating you, never say anything. Cops are AMAZING at tricking you into saying things you didn't mean or coercing confessions. When that cop tried to take your pocket knife, he was violating your civil liberties, and under NH constitutional law (which I posted above) you have a right to defend your civil liberties with violence if necessary. You should have refused to cooperate, and if they continued or threatened to arrest you, you then would have a right to use that pocket knife.

 

[StrayDawg]

WoW Has this thread ever taken off! I keep getting reply notices and all I did was post a reply ! Everyone has had good points and not so good points , but the point is it's your choice when it comes down to it. If it's legal or not.
Here's a fact for ya..... Cocaine was introduced in the 1800's ( not sure of the exact date) it was used to help treat Heroine addicts!! Go figure.
Drugs were used widely in the Victorian era many were made out of plants that grow wild today, morning lilly seeds, hawthorne tree, and many others.
So ya see drugs have been here for quite awhile. BUT it still comes down to YOUR CHOICE!

 

[RogueLeader]

Btw, Rux here is the exact number of gun deaths (total, including accidents, suicides, homocides, everything) in 1998: 30,708. You claim twice that many were killed in accidents alone.

 

[RuX]

There are so many things wrong with this I shouldn't even begin. So it is perfectly legal for police to torture the "suspects" family members in order to catch him/her? So they can illegally interrogate the "suspect"? They can drive a ****ing tank through the wall, grab him by his hair in the middle of the night, because he is a "suspect"? Remember Stalin? Giving the police, or anyone for that matter, the right to do this creates a police state. Constant fear. It doesn't matter if they have no final say. Letting them use any means necessary to apprehend a "suspect" is bad enough. They already have to much power to do so already? Letting them use "any means necessary" is overkill. And do keep in mind that these are "suspects".

i said apprehend.. meaning actually arresting the suspect.

yes.. they if they feel its neccesary to drive a tank thru a wall to capture somone, let them, as long as they have no final say in his conviction.

Wrong, in United States v. Miller the Supreme Court ruled that the "militia" refered to in the Second Amendment is composed of all civilians.

thats correct, a militia is a well trained body of armed civilians. We have the right to a militia, not to own a firearm, the constitution doesnt give me the right to have a weapon for my own private use.. .it lets me own a weapon if i am in the militia. And no.. that doesnt mean civilians have more of a right than soldiers.. it means that a militia is composed of civilians and an army is composed of soldiers.

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).12 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."13

thats horrible.. that means that civilians kill more people than cops, police usually manage to arrest people without bloodshed. This is another reason civilians dont need guns.

You miss the point of Constitutional law entirely. The United States does not HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS THAT REGULATE DRUGS. Therefore any federal laws that attempt to do so are null and void.

of course they do.. what are you talking about?

Cops search homes all the time without warrants. Sure, they supposedly can't use what they find against the suspect in a court of law, but who is stopping them? The suspect?

no.. they really dont... all the time?? You obviously have never ever had any encounters with police officers... ive never had a bad experience with one, they did in fact search my neighbors house...and they presented a warrent, asked permission and searched.

My point exactly on why we shouldn't send police officers down there. If they don't need to fight these huge traffickers with automatic weapons, and trained personnel, why the hell do the cops need these things? Again, overfunding for the police. So this proves that the cops have absolutely no need for their highpowered weapons. Why do they need more than 10+ men in full body armor, with a tactical tank, assault rifles and helicopters with IR gear to stop some odd 3 crooks inside of a bank? And to add insult to injury, the screw these attempts to. I'll try to find that story on that dumbass sniper who shot a crook, and the crook lived. Than he and his 2 comrades proceeded to waste the hostages. Great work. You'd figure with all that high tech gear and such they'd have the brainpower to use them.

They use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them. And we DO go after the big guys, what are you talking about? Do you think we just go after small time crooks? You have no knowledge about this subject, Ramon "The Baron" Cantu was just captured last year, with an estimated estate of 67 million dollars (from cocaine). Do you honestly think that police officers just use these things for the **** of it? Listen.. they risk their lives daily, and you are probably the most ungreatful person ive ever met. You obviously dont know what police officers do every day, you name a few cases where they screw up, but almost all the time they are doing positive things and you overlook them. They DO fight cartels in the US, they fight militant groups, they fight gangs, they fight idiots with guns as well. "The police" protect us, if you are being attacked you call the police, and they show up, you resent them because you are afraid of them, and honestly you dont understand anything they do.

Raven has just served to prove my point. Alot of police officers are just plain assholes. They really enjoy their job too much. As it is a human instinct, at some levels I can't blame them. I mean, if someone gave me a pistol (scratch that, how about assault rifles and body armor?), I would love to play god too, especially if almost an entire government was backing me up.

A lot of people are assholes, why are you labeling the police? Body armor.. yes.... why shouldnt they have body armor? They are being SHOT AT, and if you were being shot at you would wear it too. And no.. it doesnt prove anything, an isolated incident doesnt prove a thing.

Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada are the only countries that tax people more heavily than the United States

that is the biggest lie i have seen so far.... no.. actually.. Sweden for example taxes 64%, no european country has lower taxes than the US with the exception of Ireland.

 

[RogueLeader]

yes.. they if they feel its neccesary to drive a tank thru a wall to capture somone, let them, as long as they have no final say in his conviction

Your support of police brutality scares me.

it means that a militia is composed of civilians and an army is composed of soldiers

That is an oxymoron. A militia is by definition a military force. A civilian is by definition not a member of the military. United States v. Miller is the legal standard that the courts use now that affirms the right for personal ownership of guns. In fact, in legal terms, there are two theories as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment. One is the one you think is correct, called the State's Right Theory. It is also sometimes called Bogus Theory (not as an insult to it, because a man named Bogus first argued it). The private owernship one is called Standard Theory, because it is the legal standard that is accepted by the courts.
And even if you think the right is given to the states, not the people (even though it says "people" in the amendment), then by your own admission gun control is illegal, because it is the state's power to enact gun control. However, every state constitution grants its citizens private gun ownership rights, so they cannot.

thats horrible.. that means that civilians kill more people than cops, police usually manage to arrest people without bloodshed. This is another reason civilians dont need guns

A reason civilians do not need guns? I don't mean to flame, but jesus, what the bloody hell were you thinking when you wrote this? If civilians didn't have guns, that means in all of these cases, it would be the civilian dead instead of the criminal. You show compassion for the criminal who is threatening the life of an innocent man, and yet you accept it when police kill innocent law abiding people. Police don't usually manage to arrest people without bloodshed, they usually use or threaten violence. Even if a criminal submits peacefully, it is standard procedure to throw him to the ground and restrain him forcfully, even if he is nonviolent.

of course they do.. what are you talking about

Please tell me what Constitutional law is, because I don't think you actually know.

no.. they really dont... all the time?? You obviously have never ever had any encounters with police officers... ive never had a bad experience with one, they did in fact search my neighbors house...and they presented a warrent, asked permission and searched.

You presume way too much about my experience with police. Of course you don't have bad experiences with police, you clearly support absolute police and state power. If you opposed state power, you would be on my side wishing police could be hung by their own spinal cords. Police don't like "red commie bastards" like me. I have had more than a few problems with nazi pigs.

They use high tech gear to reduce the risk to them

No, they use high tech gear to increase risk to you. They use things like IR to search because they think its a way to get around the 4th amendment.

Listen.. they risk their lives daily, and you are probably the most ungreatful person ive ever met

I risk my life daily, because I am not legally allowed to carry a gun with me. What should I be grateful for? For them "protecting" me. The only thing I need protection from is them. That is very reason the constitution grants us the right to bear arms: so that we can fight back against corrupt cops and governments. And if any cop is going to mess with me, I'll see that that pig will be bacon.

You obviously dont know what police officers do every day

Of course I do. Here is a daily schedule for your average cop.
10:30 AM: Wake up.
10:35 AM: Go back to sleep. People don't need help yet.
12:30 PM: Wake up again. Eat donuts until I am as big as a horse.
1:30 PM: Patrol white neigborhoods to make sure none of those darn colored people are leaving their designated areas.
2:30 PM: Lunch break. Eat more donutes, until I am as big as an elephant.
6:30 PM: Lunch break over. Find black motorist to pull over.
7:00 PM: Go hunt down people commiting non-crimes, like drug users and prostitutes. If a prostitute is found, I will force her to have sex with me.
8:00 PM: Go home. Eat more donutes. I am the size of a small blue whale now. Download child pornography.

they fight militant groups

Yeah, like people who believe in rights. Those crazy bastards, how dare they think we have rights!

they fight gangs

Police departments are gangs.

"The police" protect us, if you are being attacked you call the police, and they show up, you resent them because you are afraid of them, and honestly you dont understand anything they do

Protect us? If by protect you mean they beat us, profile us, spy on us, and kill us, then yes, they do a VERY good job of protecting us. If I am under attack I will shoot the bastard on the spot. If someone is trying to kill me, I am not going to wait 10 minutes for the police. Bullets travel faster than police. I love only about a mile from a police station, even at that distance it will take them a couple of minutes to get to my house. And that is just the drive. The typical police officer has a reaction time of about 5 minutes. So that is about 7 minutes right there. It takes seconds for me to be killed. And the police arn't even required to help me.

A lot of people are assholes, why are you labeling the police? Body armor.. yes.... why shouldnt they have body armor? They are being SHOT AT, and if you were being shot at you would wear it too. And no.. it doesnt prove anything, an isolated incident doesnt prove a thing

WE are being shot at too, why can't we have body armor? You know why? Because if the police wanted to slaughter us like cattle its that much harder. And btw, just so you know:
isolated, adj- happening singly, rarely, or only once and unlikely to recur or prove a continuing problem
I believe what you meant to say was this:
common, adj- often occurring or frequently seen

 

[St0rmcaller]

Do you guys seriously got it in for all cops? Do you believe the police do more harm than good?

 

[RogueLeader]

The answers to your questions are most cops and yes, respectivly.

 

[St0rmcaller]

If that's true then rogue, I seriously fear the day when you get your way.

[Edit] I believe that your views are generally intelligently spoken, but I feel they lack life experience. I think you belive what you read too much. Statistics, numbers and "reports" can easily be weighed to invoke certain reaction from certain sects of the populace. I see plenty of people in this here thread quoting these things as if they were "gospel".

 

[RogueLeader]

So do I. In a world without abusive fascists, who is left to hate?

 

[St0rmcaller]

Dammit, stop replying so damn fast!

 

[RogueLeader]

No

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

I just don't like the way people give cops (and judges, politicians, etc) near-infinite respect and trust. Out of the 5 cops I know personally, 1 is a dishonest biggot on a power trip... the others are all great guys. So from my experience most cops *in my area* are OK, but I'm sure in other places things are much worse. And just FYI, of the 50+ gun owners that I both know personally and have seen using guns, none are biggots, rednecks, or on power trips, and I'd say every one of them is more responsible (and more fit to pack heat) than that 1 pig.