Firstly, thank you for answering the questions. I don't like all of your answers (and I'll get to those in a moment) but I want to thank you first for giving answers. Let me also disclaim this - I was in Keene for all of a day so anything I say about "the police" is in my experience in Detroit, other parts of Michigan, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, DC and the areas in between there.
For me, "traffic enforcement" means modifying driver behavior in a positive fashion, be it causing someone to stop driving like an a-hole, or encouraging someone to repair their car, which is falling apart. Sometimes in my judgment it takes a ticket.
Fair enough. You mentioned elsewhere that some behaviors you feel a need to act on BEFORE it leads to victims and while I understand (and even once agreed with) that logic, I consider it faulty now. I can wrap this next statement in bubble-wrap to make it softer and gentler in many ways but the short answer is that I'd rather be a victim of dangerous behavior than a victim of "for your own protection." I don't fear drunk drivers, wheelieing motorbikers or beer-bottle throwing men any more than I fear being struck by lightning. Can it happen, sure. Should I change to mitigate it? No. However, I can feel my blood pressure rise when I see a police cruiser or hear sirens.
I guess at it's core, I don't think ANYONE has a right to do "behavior modification" to anyone but themselves (and perhaps... PERHAPS a parent to a child - jury is still out on that). If nobody is hurt by it, there is no reason in my mind why the behavior should warrant "modification".
But the guy who hits my cruiser with a long-neck beer bottle and forces me to run after him through a couple back yards, when I find the baggy on him one would surmise a "stern talking-to" won't do much to modify his behavior from being an a-hole, he'll probably get charged because that legal smack is about all he'll understand.
I think you've epitomized it with this statement. Throwing a beer bottle at your cruiser was a destructive act. It's within your right (as a sovereign individual) to apprehend the perpetrator (or hire someone) to recover costs of the damage (perhaps it's as small as the need to wash your car, or have scratches fixed) done. The fact that he has marijuana on him is TOTALLY irrelevant to the damaging act and, in my mind, is NOTHING more than your excuse for enforcing someone elses (perhaps yours, perhaps "the people's") way of life on him. Being an asshole, as you put it, isn't a crime and shouldn't be treated like one.
Please don't take that as a "you suck". I'm quite convinced that you fully beleive you're doing good and preventing him from escalating and perhaps harming people next time (what if he's missed your car and hit the pedestrian behind it?). My concern is that you may be taking for granted what is "good" in the first place.
Without being all-knowing of every RSA, I'm sure there are some I'd decline pursue unless pressed to.
Not trying to nit-pick but I'm actually confused. You said in one of your other responses that "if told to confiscate guns" you'd not carry out that order. Yet here, you're clear that there are some laws you'd not carry out "unless pressed to". Let us assume for a moment that some seldom-used (but on the books) law "granted authority" to confiscate guns and your superior officer (or perhaps a direct executive order) ordered you to. As unreasonable as this sounds, it's actually happened twice in the last 5 years, during the Tornado "crisis" in Kansas and Katrina. It's not a far cry that a flood hitting Keene might have that order given by outsiders.
If you disagree with something, like confiscating guns, how does "being pressed" change the fact that you disagree with it? I suppose I should clarify here that when I say "disagree" I mean ETHICALLY. I couldn't bring myself to do something I ethically disagree with even "if pressed". Perhaps you actually DON'T ethically disagree with enforcement but you object on practical reasons alone? Frankly, disagreement for ethical OR practical reasons is fine in my book but perhaps establishing that for us these things ARE a matter of ethics and NOT "bad policy" might go a long way to finding mutual understanding.
I'll agree that most people tend to be uncomfortable around cops...I was in a convenience store on the way to work yesterday and there was a Swanzey cop grabbing a bite, and I'll admit I didn't even know him and I was a bit uncomfortable, I don't know why because I KNOW we're not all ready to club random citizens. But to leap from that to the phrase "police in general are despised" is off that deep end I spoke of earlier.
I can only speak of my personal experience. I was pulled over once for running a red light because I was distracted. It was about 11:30 pm in the sleepy town of Bardstown Kentucky (Less than half the population of Keene) with no other cars around. The officer that pulled me over was abrasive, pushy and scared the hell out of me. One of those "shine the light in your eyes so you can only see my shadow" kinda guys who needed to maintain this aura of mystery and awe. This guy literally flicked my license through my window so it hit me in the head (it's a little piece of plastic which isn't a big deal, but is infuriating). He then let me go without ticketing me. That was the best experience I've ever had with a law enforcement official and only because it didn't end up costing me money.
You admit yourself that you feel uncomfortable around police and you ARE one. Imagine how the rest of the world feels, without even that sense of professional reciprocity. Now, multiply that by the number of people who actually DO break the law regularly (i.e. smoke pot) but don't harm others. As a civilian, I've never ONCE heard someone say "Thank goodness for the police" (and I have been witness to the "good" things police do, like investigating after robberies.) but I've heard many people remark on how uncomfortable they feel when a police cruiser pulls behind them on the road, or at how angry they are that they have fines to pay to pay for having a broken headlight (despite the fact that they're driving in the day). In my experience to say that police in general are dispised is fully accurate. You have to understand that I've lived the entire range of lifestyles from upper-middle class to poor. I've lived in areas where police have been shot at for simply BEING police. That certainly isn't common, and the idea that someone deserves to be harmed disgusts me, but the fact that it happens is telling. Speaking personally, I fear the police more than anything else I encounter in a given day. I've spun out of control in a car doing 65 MPH, across three lanes of highway traffic before slamming into a concrete median and the most disturbing thing that night was dealing with the police - my wife was ticketed for "destruction of public property" because she hit and chipped the barrier. "Are you guys alright" was never asked.
Open carry trash pickup? Good for you. Now, as a courtesy perhaps you'd let us know because there will be citizens (there are those who fear the gun, even when it's sitting on the coffee table) who call us all in a tizzy and I'd like to be able to tell them "Don't worry about it...it's all good, and their cleaning your street up."
I understand the sentiment there but do you understand how odd that sounds to me? Do you expect people to call you and inform them that they're exercising their freedom or speech, that might upset people too. The entire idea behind a right is that you DON'T need to ask or even inform someone. "Officers, there are guys walking down my street carrying guns!" should be met with "Ma'am, are they firing them? Has anyone been harmed? No, okay, then there's no problem there" should be the response with or without prior notice. The idea of demonstrations of all kind is that they question the status quo - if people understand there are guns on the streets, in the hands of regular people, these kinds of things won't be shocking at all. It's the shattering of a belief that is disturbing to people and it's that beleif itself which open carry works to dispell. By informing the police first so that they can give a "oh, we know, they're OK" will send the message "Guys with guns are okay as long as the police know why they'e carrying" and that's the opposite of the message that's trying to be pushed. The idea is that ALL people are equal, soverign and responsible. All people (not just the police) should be able to protect themselves when and where that need arises and shouldn't need clearance or permission to do it.
As to the responce after a civilian discharges his weapon, I'll agree there. Cooperation with the police is probably the best idea but I have a caveat to that. There are cases here in Maryland (a restrictive state in terms of gun law) where the police arrested the man and confiscated the firearm. Here, the idea is that "any use of a gun is a crime, until proven otherwise or unless done by a cop". If you have video of a robber firing a gun first, your weapon will STILL be taken and run against open crime databases to prove it's not been used in other crimes as if firing a weapon is probable cause for such a seizure. Even if Keene police don't do this, the flow of people moving from areas that DO will make people reluctant to comply. Please don't take it personal when past histories of oppresive actions from law enforcement tarnish your reputation, counter it with examples of common sense rather than increasing hostility to those who are reluctant.
I think there should be a process to reclaim the right to carry. Factors I think that should be considered would include the type of crime (violent or non-violent), how long ago, your history since then etc. If you just got out of prison for a string of shotgun liquor store robberies where you blasted a clerk or two? Ummmm, no, that person rates a lifetime ban, in my opinion. I even think Mark_FTL should at least be allowed to be heard, given the specific circumstances and the time involved.
I notice you didn't say that Mark SHOULD be allowed to carry, only that he should be allowed to apply. Realistically, how would this work though? You say that the guy who shot and killed the liquor store clerk should be permanently banned but suggest that Mark should have the chance? If you hold the idea that people CAN change, how do you create exemptions? Why couldn't the liquor store killer change after a decade too? Perhaps becoming a father has instilled in him a deep respect for life...
Once again, I lean to the side of "I'd rather deal with the consequences" than deprive one person a right. You're used to New Hampshire's gun climate and even in the least restrictive state in the nation you recognize that people get freaked out by guns, how would you expect a sampling of people to fairly re-enstate someone's right to carry when they get freaked out over non-felons carrying? The same thing that makes me despise the idea of juries makes me weary of any "process" to reinstate gun ownership. How can you expect a group of fallable humans to arrive at an infallible decisions?
Furthermore, if you're willing to accept that there are some cases where Constiutional rights don't apply (I'm going to assume you're a Constitutionalist... I notice you reference federal and state Constitutions and thanked Puke for his service, so I'll assume you hold "American Virtues" in high esteem) what is the line on the others? Some states don't allow felons to vote or hold public office. Would you feel okay that some felons were denied their right to religion or free speech? What makes right to own a gun and right to choose your own god so different?
I'm not trying to put you on the defensive side.
I believe that given the same set of information, everyone would come to the same decisions. In asking my questions I'm trying to grok your logic. Unlike Kola, I don't really see "winning over the police" as an unplausible goal because I beleive that just as "the people" don't think a certan way, neither do "the police".
However, you said "I think there are over a thousand members of this forum. Most of them do not live in Keene" and I do agree with this, as it relates to me. I do not live in Keene (yet), and so despite my interest in your replies I will stop participating in this thread.
Actually, Caleb said that, not Shane. This is a slightly relevant point because I think you took that as a subtle blow off. I for one, am working on moving to Keene so I think that this is totally relevant to me, even though I don't live there yet.
Author
Topic: Copwatch Invited for Ride-Along - Got Questions for a Keene Police Lt.? (Read 30563 times)