You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lawful carry citizens as targets
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
Davidsog, You have managed to keep both eyes wide open over the last few decades like few can. I’m quite impressed. Kudos to you, sir.
Wag, quite the opposite. Those mindsets are the direct result of the way the public perceives their treatment by those appointed to serve and protect them who have instead chosen to cover their own arses with little to no to little regard for the collateral damage they inflict.
Wag, the preponderance of evidence actually indicates quite the opposite. It is the citizens who are most being victimized in this country by both criminal predators AND the people they have appointed to protect their communities. Because, well, it isn’t the priority any longer for peace officers to protect citizens but rather that they get home “safely to the warm embrace of their loved ones” and that they use whatever force and or procedures desired by them to achieve their goals without regard to Bill of Rights or the principles under which this nation was founded.
Fireforged, I can only assume that you like Wag have no conception or actual experience as to what it really means to “protect and serve” as a civilian peace officer.
Fireforged, it is when one, foreign or domestic, has no adherence or respect for the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles under which this nation was founded that one has opted to wage war against our citizens and OUR nation.
You are actually right on that one. It never was a “war on drugs.” It has always been a war on our people, waged quite brutally, and with little regard for collateral damage.
Both of those mindsets are a direct result of the lack of respect that LE gets from the public these days.
Wag, quite the opposite. Those mindsets are the direct result of the way the public perceives their treatment by those appointed to serve and protect them who have instead chosen to cover their own arses with little to no to little regard for the collateral damage they inflict.
When there is a preponderance of attacks on officers and officers being injured and killed, the response is always going to be to maximize their safety.
Wag, the preponderance of evidence actually indicates quite the opposite. It is the citizens who are most being victimized in this country by both criminal predators AND the people they have appointed to protect their communities. Because, well, it isn’t the priority any longer for peace officers to protect citizens but rather that they get home “safely to the warm embrace of their loved ones” and that they use whatever force and or procedures desired by them to achieve their goals without regard to Bill of Rights or the principles under which this nation was founded.
There is no "militarization" happening..
Fireforged, I can only assume that you like Wag have no conception or actual experience as to what it really means to “protect and serve” as a civilian peace officer.
The investigations into crime, "apprehension" of criminals and other methods of committing offenders to the criminal justice system is NOT warfighting.
Fireforged, it is when one, foreign or domestic, has no adherence or respect for the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles under which this nation was founded that one has opted to wage war against our citizens and OUR nation.
The WAR on drugs has never been an actual "War" on drugs. Its just word-play.
You are actually right on that one. It never was a “war on drugs.” It has always been a war on our people, waged quite brutally, and with little regard for collateral damage.
Davidsog, You have managed to keep both eyes wide open over the last few decades like few can. I’m quite impressed. Kudos to you, sir.
The bromance is real.
While I won't go as far as some of Leaf's comments (I must have been blinking), whether you dislike the phrasing of militarization or not, the proliferation of military level equipment by law enforcement seems pretty hard to dismiss offhand. Certainly some threats have risen in more recent years that require certain equipment, but liquidation of MRAPs and the like seems a bit much (who doesn't want DHS money). Sure some stories are blown way out of proportion, but even at a local level responses can resemble more of a military operation than the days of old. Now obviously no one wants a repeat of events like the Miami FBI shootout or more recently with the Dallas, TX shooting, but there has to be a balance somewhere.
My impression is FireForged took issue more with the notion that all police had been federalized towards a chosen enemy.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The bromance is real.
Is that jealousy?
When someone points a gun at me for no good reason(from my point of view), I consider that a threat. I don't give a rat's patoot what sort of clothes that threat is wearing.
I don't commit crimes and don't accept being treated like a criminal.
Which is likely to happen in today's reality of mass shootings. Sounds like an incident waiting to happen.
No, Sir. If you are not a LEO then you drop the weapon to empty your hands and follow LEO commands. That is the only way we as concerned citizens with CCL can function in the event of a mass shooting.
Undoubtedly.Is that jealousy?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
FireForged
New member
How is the view with your head in the sand?
I am not sticking my head in the sand.. I am simply not giving in to drama and word play. I do not consider bloused trousers and helmets or riding around in surplus armor or utilizing small team tactics to engage and apprehend criminal offenders to be Militarization.
There are tens of thousands of LEO departments in this country who act independently from the Military, are not controlled by the military, do not share military mandates, do not carry out a military role or function in society. As long as that is the case, I do not consider the Police to me Militarized.
Sure, there are people who want to base their belief of Militarization on optics and visual aesthetics but I am not one of those people.
Last edited:
I am simply not giving in to drama and word play.
So all those professional police periodicals are giving in to drama and word play. Only you have clarity of vision.
Ok
I do not consider bloused trousers and helmets or riding around in surplus armor or utilizing small team tactics to engage and apprehend criminal offenders to be Militarization.
Forged, it isn’t the bloused trousers, helmets, or riding around in surplus armor to apprehend criminal offenders that particularly concerns me. Heck, I’ve had my patrol car including windows and overhead light bar shot at and damaged on multiple occasions. Once I even had my patrol car firebombed, all right here in the good old USA.
In certain areas, I much appreciated being able to “gear up.”
It is the utilization of small team military tactics to apprehend presumed “criminal offenders” that most concerns me. Particularly so when those offenders are so liberally defined to mean just about anyone but them (LEO) and with little regard towards the principles under which this nation was founded, our Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution. And quite frankly, those types of violations are happening far too frequently in our country under the guise of “how dangerous it is out there this day and age” type claims.
Back in the seventies and eighties it was not unusual for us to take fire directed at us particularly in our marked patrol cars while driving randomly down highways and interstates.
During that same period, as an officer on duty I was involved in no less than six shootings, I was shot twice, and I had no less than a half dozen other occasions where suspects attempted to stab and/or slice me with all manner of pointy and/or edged weapons.
You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not impressed about how dangerous it is to be a cop “this day and age.”
And now you other folks just stop fighting over my affection. The Oracle loves all his minions equally!
My behavior is such that I have essentially no contact with law enforcement.
If I do,I'm courteous,co-operative,and ,in the setting of the street,"A cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong"
I'm not anti-cop.
I understand cops are human,humans make mistakes.
This may be somewhat controversial,but wearing the badge assumes some risk. It comes with the territory. There can be a bias of risk n favor of the officer going home safe at the end of the shift.
Its a problem when that bias of risk results in dead civilians who were not presenting a true risk to the LEO. IMO,we have to be very careful about "perceived risk"
People have been shot and killed by LEOS for having a cell phone or pop can in their hand.
One case was a no-knock warrant on the wrong address.An old man was killed for having a can of pop n his hand. No amount of explaining makes that OK.
It does occur that some cops get a little "wound too tight" toward pulling the trigger. I'm talking SOME cops,not all. Its no secret that many LEOs are not shooting enthusiasts and many only shoot to keep minimally qualified.
Like pilots and surgeons,remember 49 % of them are below average.
I don't know the numbers,but I think its reasonable for illustration purposes to say in the last 10 years we have 10 times more concealed carry permits.
If the LEO goes full adrenaline finger on the trigger at the sight of a firearm,
innocent people can get killed.
YES! I agree that as a armed civilian,it IS my responsibility to not pose a threat to LEOs. I can help the cops to not shoot me.
When I see an armed LEO,I don't see a threat,. The lawful concealed or open carry civilian is carrying for essentially the same reason the LEO is and represents no more threat than the LEO does.
And the civilian is just as lawfully and legitimately armed as the LEO is.
Once again,I see no threat in an armed LEO. Concealed and open carry are legit and common enough its time LEO's not necessariy see the armed citizen as any more of a threat than another LEO.
If I do,I'm courteous,co-operative,and ,in the setting of the street,"A cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong"
I'm not anti-cop.
I understand cops are human,humans make mistakes.
This may be somewhat controversial,but wearing the badge assumes some risk. It comes with the territory. There can be a bias of risk n favor of the officer going home safe at the end of the shift.
Its a problem when that bias of risk results in dead civilians who were not presenting a true risk to the LEO. IMO,we have to be very careful about "perceived risk"
People have been shot and killed by LEOS for having a cell phone or pop can in their hand.
One case was a no-knock warrant on the wrong address.An old man was killed for having a can of pop n his hand. No amount of explaining makes that OK.
It does occur that some cops get a little "wound too tight" toward pulling the trigger. I'm talking SOME cops,not all. Its no secret that many LEOs are not shooting enthusiasts and many only shoot to keep minimally qualified.
Like pilots and surgeons,remember 49 % of them are below average.
I don't know the numbers,but I think its reasonable for illustration purposes to say in the last 10 years we have 10 times more concealed carry permits.
If the LEO goes full adrenaline finger on the trigger at the sight of a firearm,
innocent people can get killed.
YES! I agree that as a armed civilian,it IS my responsibility to not pose a threat to LEOs. I can help the cops to not shoot me.
When I see an armed LEO,I don't see a threat,. The lawful concealed or open carry civilian is carrying for essentially the same reason the LEO is and represents no more threat than the LEO does.
And the civilian is just as lawfully and legitimately armed as the LEO is.
Once again,I see no threat in an armed LEO. Concealed and open carry are legit and common enough its time LEO's not necessariy see the armed citizen as any more of a threat than another LEO.
Last edited:
HiBC, to be honest with you I see nothing in your post that I would disagree with other than when "I" see a cop I don't automatically assume I'm dealing with a good guy/gal. What happens next helps me to make that determination and as often as not that determination isn't going to necessarily be definitive towards that particular LEO.
But to be consistent with the initial focus of this thread, DO NOT be holding your firearm in your hand when the cops show up. Additionally, I do not believe in mandated training to own and carry a firearm. I will say however it is a good idea to get some unless you want to spend many years in prison or an early demise.
Dang it, I forgot again. So says The Oracle.
But to be consistent with the initial focus of this thread, DO NOT be holding your firearm in your hand when the cops show up. Additionally, I do not believe in mandated training to own and carry a firearm. I will say however it is a good idea to get some unless you want to spend many years in prison or an early demise.
Dang it, I forgot again. So says The Oracle.
The lawful concealed or open carry civilian is carrying for essentially the same reason the LEO is and represents no more threat than the LEO does.
As one lawfully concealed carry civilian, I'm not carrying for the same reasons as a LEO (as I see it). I'm less concerned about the public good and more concerned about the safety of myself and my own family. I'm also not acting as someone with the authority to enforce the law. Frankly if I see someone breaking the law while carrying I might call it in (and obviously would in the case of violent crime), but it's not my duty, again IMO, to do anything about it unless it threatens me personally. I don't see this as splitting hairs. Moreso, it actually goes to your own point. People choose to become law enforcement. In doing so that person is choosing to put himself or herself in repeatedly dangerous situations. That person should be, and in this I think we agree, held to a higher standard than just someone out carrying for his or her own protection. That may mean taking the extra second to evaluate a situation, even if doing so adds to the risk.
And the civilian is just as lawfully and legitimately armed as the LEO is.
I agree with you from the lawful standpoint 100%, the only thing I would caution is the use of the word "legitimate". Who determines what is or isn't legitimate? I don't really care if someone thinks my concern for my safety and my family's safety is legitimate. I am following the law and I make that determination. The word legitimate is a favorite of people in the other camp.
When I see an armed LEO,I don't see a threat
I see a potential threat. Maybe it's part of the difference in our perspectives on this whole topic. When I see a LEO I see someone that has a degree of legal authority, some training in the application of force, and the means to use that force if he/she chooses. I have trained with and under people in law enforcement that I would trust my life to. I've also met and interacted with members of law enforcement that, from my perspective, are in the job to have access to some small amount of power. I've had more positive interactions than good, but I'm always cautious. It's not because I assume they're ill-intentioned, it's because I can't always be sure they'll view something the same as myself and that difference in perspective could result in me being killed (which is why I try to consider both sides as best I can).
FireForged
New member
So all those professional police periodicals are giving in to drama and word play. Only you have clarity of vision.
I framed my opinion within a specific context and explained exactly why I feel the way I do. If you care to counter specific points with specific facts, I am open to re-evaluating how I feel about it. Until then, I stand by what I have said.
I am not speaking to the merits or demerits of police periodicals, I am speaking to the comments made in this thread.
It is the utilization of small team military tactics to apprehend presumed “criminal offenders” that most concerns me. Particularly so when those offenders are so liberally defined to mean just about anyone but them (LEO) and with little regard towards the principles under which this nation was founded, our Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution. And quite frankly, those types of violations are happening far too frequently in our country under the guise of “how dangerous it is out there this day and age” type claims.
judicious administration of force is a strictly regulated endeavor.. it has nothing to do with who is liberally classified as an "offender" and who isnt. Just because someone is classified as an offender does not mean a tactical team buts down a door to get them. Come on man, team tactics is nothing more than a method to increase effectiveness as well as officer safety. Team tactics are as closely regulated by existing law, policy, protocol and custom just as ANY use of force carried out by the individual officer ( if not more so).
judicious administration of force is a strictly regulated endeavor.
Fireforged, and as a civilian you think that when a cop uses force it is automatically both judiciously applied and adequately regulated because someone hung a badge on the particular officer's chest who engaged in such behavior?
Were you ever a peace officer, sir.
hounddog409
New member
"As a firearm carrier, how can one consider taking a shot without knowing absolutely what one is shooting at"
What?
If my gun is drawn, someone was about to cause me serious personal harm. Or is in my home.
What the hell are you doing? Of course you should be 100% sure.
What?
If my gun is drawn, someone was about to cause me serious personal harm. Or is in my home.
What the hell are you doing? Of course you should be 100% sure.
I would agree, though what some see as cautious others see as paranoid.As sure as elbow and knee pads on a modern day tunnel rat, you don't have to live paranoid to always be cautious.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited: