DISCUSSION: Seized by the Manchester, NH Police for Open Carry

[mvpel]

Since the previous thread was closed down due to various raised hackles over the seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion with respect to the actions of the Manchester police, please restrain your animus and name-calling in this discussion thread.

The original thread is here.

The thread restricted to annoucements and updates is here.

 

[d-mac]

Mvpel

We are dying for information!!!!!!!!!!


Any way you can at least post once a day. Even if it is to say "Nothing new", this will satisfy many.

 

[sch40]

*[tag]*

--although the "lively" discussion was sometimes interesting, I was mostly reading the first thread for mvpel's updates.

 

[hammer4nc]

While the issue of personal/constitutional rights raised by this incident are important, the alleged injustice visited on mvpel was minor compared to others who have been violated. Don't get me wrong, it takes a determined, articulate campaign as apparently is being waged by mvpel, to have any impact on police policy, and I wish him well in this effort.

However, there continue to be a steady stream of cases, where victims are murdered by rogue cops; otherwise seriously violated such that the damage cannot be undone. These cases go to trial (either civil or criminal) and the jury finds against the leo. The victim is awarded a multi-million dollar verdict; the cops involved are fired, or (much more rarely) given prison sentences. Hirko (Bethlehem). Newby (Louisville). Walker (Columbus). Many others in process.

Still, there seems to be an attitude among police that the officers/depts. who receive these verdicts are the ones who have been wronged. Go to any cop discussion forum on the net, and see how the citizen victims are villified, the juries who decide these cases reviled. How many "burn the scumbag" threads? Seeming fascination with posting "officer down" stories by the score. And, anyone who expresses an opinion against the actions of the police is dismissed out of hand as a "tinfoil hat leo-hater".

Most of the folks posting these comments purport to be active police officers. Their attitude is not swayed one iota by rational arguments on a discussion board; not swayed, even, by multi-million judgements against other cops who got caught.

I don't have a solution for this situation. Usually the final posts in these threads express something like: bad apples in all professions; no different in le...

I wonder if the cops who refuse to acknowledge such wrong-doing realize the damage they're doing to the profession; or if they are truly in total denial.

Very perplexing.

 

[thefitzvh]

All i want is for wrongdoing to be admitted when it's there


And it doesn't happen in todays LE. There was a time when officers were fired for stuff like this.


James

 

[goste]

As a LEO, I want to know what the caller said to 911. When you find out, PLEASE, PLEASE, let us know.

Responding to disturbance with a firearm call's , A cop has to assume worst case senerio. It's suicide not to. It still seem's to me, that your MAIN beef, is with who ever called 911.

Are you sure you want to start this thread again?

 

[kbr80]

A cop has to assume worst case senerio. It's suicide not to.

Go ahead, expect he worst. Thats a good thing. But, once you arrive on seen, and through observation (which it seems is a lost art to the new breed of LEO's) you should be able make decisions on what tactic you use to interact with.

 

[P95Carry]

I too would be more than interested to know the nature and content of the 911 call . and the despatcher's interpretation of same ..... and the ensuing transmission.

once you arrive on scene, and through observation

This tho IMO is still at the crux of this whole deal - going on the facts as supplied...... it should matter not what was said, in as much as, even a brief observation should it would have seemed, made it abundantly clear that the threat as such was very low key, and thus could have been handled with more aplomb.

 

[longrifleman]

Welcome goste

Might be a good idea to drop by the fire station and borrow some nomex gear to keep by the keyboard.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

When agents of the govt interfere with citizens bareing arms a lot of us get nervous. We've read too many history books. Some folks think all that reading has made us paranoid. Maybe so. Maybe a few more people should take the risk and study up on the likely outcome of a disarmed, helpless citizenry.

What troubles me about situations like this one isn't so much one encounter as much as the attitude that underlays the immediate desire to disarm anyone other than a govt employee. Most of the details were discussed to death on the other thread but I never recieved much satisifaction on this point.

"Officer Safety" is not a satisfactory answer. If anyone would like to help me out I would appreciate it.

 

[strambo]

What troubles me about situations like this one isn't so much one encounter as much as the attitude that underlays the immediate desire to disarm anyone other than a govt employee.

"Officer Safety" is not a satisfactory answer. If anyone would like to help me out I would appreciate it.

Good question, as I draw upon my Bachelors in Criminal Justice, experience as a soldier and citizen to find an answer...all I hear are crickets in the background.

Cars are deadly weapons too, and many departments allow Officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles due to the damage a person can commit with one. However, I don't see Officers taking every driver out of the vehicle (er, I mean "weapon") by force, or otherwise, for a traffic stop. Why not? Officer safety comes first, you never know if someone will decide to flee, or run you over, in that weapon before you finish running their license. If that license check turns up a CCW, then should the Officer drag you out and search you for a gun based on his new "suspicion" that you are carrying until he determines it is safe to give it back? Should this also include a speach about not needing one?

Also, in the above car scenario, the person being pulled over has actually committed a crime! (or at least an "infraction") Whereas, mvpel committed no cime at all.