Should they get an exception?

[AlbertH]

I did always find it odd that most legislation that exempts LEOs says nothing about active and former military personnel. I would think veterans should be just as eligible for the exemptions as former police officers.

Or, we could just let everyone exercise their rights....

if ex military should be exempt, why not joe citizen who has gone through extensive weapons training also be exempt. I don't know about your state, but here in Michigan there are quite a few places that offer basically the same training as police get

Al

 

[UhKlem]

Some exemptions are easier to live with than others. Like cops speeding when they aren't in pursuit or responding to an emergency call. As if the speed limit were some brick wall function where magically life goes from safe to 'yer gonna die'. Yawn.

It might be more illuminating to think of other abuses to develop the proper sensitivity to this issue.

How do most of us feel about our public servants being able to lie to us with no recourse, yet it is a crime if we make even an inadvertent mis-statement to an LEO (just ask that big bad felon Martha Stewart)?

Or perhaps closer to 'home' for anyone who flies, how do we feel about TSA being able to legally perform what would be sexual molestation for anyone else (being instructed to press until feeling testicular resistance). I can't imagine any self respecting LEO doesn't bristle at that, particularly when the TSA's own agents and audits indicate the whole endeavor is little more than expensive security theatre.

Going back to guns the other side of the coin is that legal exemptions for cops just shows that all of the arguments for civilian disarmament are bogus, since if everything the gun phobes said are true about these dangerous implements, then I sure wouldn't want them in common use for daily interaction with the public.

Imagine if the drug laws gave exemptions for officer consumption of LSD, heroin, and ecstacy, would that be reasonable? I can't imagine a job related use for that exemption.

But the job related use for short barreled rifles, adjustable stocks, full capacity magazines, suppressors, small concealable back up guns, etc. applies equally to anyone who might want to protect self and property under varying common circumstances (business owner, traveller, isolated rancher, victim of natural disaster, person of smaller stature, etc.)

Lautenburg/Violence Against Women Act set the precedent, but of course that law applied to real crimes with real victims. Possession of a common use tool shouldn't be a crime for anyone who is behaving peacably and hasn't had their rights reduced via due process. If the police are subject to the same laws, it will help them get on board for defeating such symbolistic non-sense and abuse of the law.

A police state is where there are vast discrepancies between what is lawful for a citizen and a government agent. It's a bad idea to expand that gulf to where our delegated agents and public servants become defacto masters. L. Neil Smith's essay applies equally to LEOs as it does to craven hypocritical politicians:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

 

[kwguy]

Trying to apply logic to an illogical situation does not work. The only logic here is that this 'exemption' junk is used by them to divide and conquer.

 

[G'dale Mike]

On duty or off duty?

 

[Panzercat]

You're going to have a tough time convincing me these guys should be any more exempt than the rest of us.

"Would you trust your life to this cop? SWAT officer attracts ridicule after he's pictured with his rifle sight (red dot) on BACKWARDS"...'It's disturbing to think that 1) none of his buddies corrected it, and 2) he's in a real-life situation with his optic on backwards, which means he's never fired that rifle with the optic on it, which means it isn't zeroed and he thought it was OK to show up to a gunfight with an unzeroed weapon,' wrote one Reddit user.

I mean, I guess it's easy to pick and choose bad examples all day long (the target rich environment helps), but the fact exists they're just people too.

 

[nickn10]

Taking a more macro view, I would go so far as to say that the greatest possible threat to the Republic would be a significant Δ between the amount of force able to be leveraged by agents of the state vs. force under the control of the common citizenry.

I remember well Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those government agents KILLED civilians under orders from OUR government. This belief that LEOs will not fire upon, or arrest civilians is hog wash. I'm a former MP and retired Corrections officer and the so called SWAT mentality has permeated down to the smallest police force. They are being trained to be attack dogs and the urge to bite is prevalent. Don't think just because that they are your neighbors that they will not follow their orders. Training instills a feeling that they are "better" than civilians, this inevitably leads to an us against them mentality.Check history if you think this is BS.

 

[kwguy]

^^^ It's all too easy for people to fall into that trap. Happens all the time.

 

[TanklessPro]

On duty or off duty?

It doesn't matter. Most LEO's say they are never off duty.
But then again, I'm not LEO and if work calls I have to go.

 

[jmr40]

When it comes to gun control laws I believe that any American citizen should be able to own any weapon, or magazine commonly used buy LE. I do not believe they should get exceptions, but we should not be required to have any less.

When it comes to weapons commonly used by the military, and not in common use for LE I can understand restrictions.

 

[Deanimator]

Yeah, when an active shooter is blasting away in the school cafeteria the cops that arrive first can practice standing slide lock reloads while they wait for help instead of arming themselves to the hilt and neutralizing the threat.

The "active shooters" mostly remain active until they decide to shoot themselves. You'll need a MUCH better excuse to create a caste system in this country.

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Police don't protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who don't protect themselves.

If you're not willing and able to protect yourself and those entrusted to your care, you're just not going to get protected AT ALL.

Anybody who tells you any different is a liar.

 

[Deanimator]

That said, however, I don't think the victim of a crime has a defensive need for fully automatic weapons,

Why do YOU?

Take a lot of defended trench lines and bunkers on a shift?

 

[G'dale Mike]

Tankless, that makes sense. Obviously, i am not LEO, in my gut i feel LEO should be able to carry whatever is necesary,, intellectually, it's difficult to believe LEO should be exempt from the laws which govern the populace.
It's almost like a broadening of the elitism that IS federal politics, making laws for the "little people" but exempting themselves and living as if they are royalty, or above the law.

 

[kwguy]

It's funny, the anti's try to use the "why do civilians need weapons of war" argument when they talk about semi-automatic 'assault style' rifles. But they never ask why the police need 'real' weapons of war, such as machine guns and apc's. If the police need to lay down a 'base of fire' with a machine gun to serve a warrant or make an arrest, then maybe there are larger problems involved.

 

[waterhouse]

Police don't protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who don't protect themselves.

If you're not willing and able to protect yourself and those entrusted to your care, you're just not going to get protected AT ALL.

Anybody who tells you any different is a liar.

On several occasions I have protected individuals during actively violent situations, either through force, threat of force, or my mere presence.

Apparently, either I am a liar or you are mistaken.

I'd advise anyone to be prepared to protect themselves, as the cops probably will not get there in time to fully protect you. I think my fastest response time to a violent call ever was under 20 seconds, and yet a lot of damage can be done to a human in less time than that. Average response times are probably north of 3 minutes and depending on where you live may be many times that. I'd prefer that people use whatever weapon and magazine size they prefer to accomplish the task of protecting themselves.

You are correct that the courts have found that there is no legal duty to protect. To say that police offer no protection "AT ALL" is hyperbole at best and a lie at worst.

 

[tomrkba]

No, the police should not have exceptions. Whatever is available to the average citizen should be available to the police. The difference creates a separate class within our society (we already have a "law enforcement class as evidenced by the firearms and national carry exceptions). It poisons the police-citizen relationship by reinforcing the "us versus them" mentality already prevalent in many police departments. It is my belief that police tactics should take precedence over gear; it seems like many of these "dangerous situations" are in fact created by poor police tactics. I learned this from several active duty police officers who reviewed several incidents and they pointed out how the officer(s) placed himself in needless danger or increased the overall level of risk.

Police don't protect individuals.

They can and do. They just have no obligation to do so under law. There may be a department policy dictating that they must act in the presence of crime, but that is neither a law nor an acceptance of general liability. Every state supreme court has ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals. If the state is responsible for every successful crime, then they're liable for every successful crime. Placing the police as the responsible entity opens them up to constant legal liability that would be impossible to stop.

 

[Deanimator]

On several occasions I have protected individuals during actively violent situations, either through force, threat of force, or my mere presence.

If you "protected" somebody as an individual:

1. The threat wasn't immediate.
2. The threat wasn't serious.
3. The victim was insanely lucky because you were STANDING THERE when the threat arose.
4. You were detailed to protect that individual.

When the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm arises, it is VANISHINGLY rare to be "protected" by the police when you need it. You're more likely to see a UFO or bigfoot.

Police protection of individuals WHEN THEY NEED IT is a fairytale.

Fairytales are a REALLY lousy basis on which to deprive citizens of their rights OR to create a caste system with police above the citizens.

 

[waterhouse]

I'll add that in my department we are more limited than the law. I may, by state law, own short barrel rifles, shorts barrel shotguns, machine guns, and magazines which hold over 30 rounds. I may not use any of these for work as they are prohibited by policy.

 

[Deanimator]

They can and do. They just have no obligation to do so under law.

They almost NEVER do. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE unless they're detailed to protect that individual or the victim is INCREDIBLY lucky.

I don't have a police bodyguard detail.

I'm strictly on my own when it comes to personal protection.

I've protected myself.

I know other people who've protected themselves.

I've NEVER met ANYBODY who was protected from immediate danger by police. It's been almost sixty years and I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Police draw chalk outlines around people. It's your choice whether you make it more likely that they draw one around you or an assailant.

 

[waterhouse]

If you "protected" somebody as an individual:

The threat wasn't immediate.
The threat wasn't serious.
The victim was insanely lucky because you were STANDING THERE when the threat arose.
You were detailed to protect that individual.

I'm glad you were present for all of my use of force encounters so that you could present them in such a concise list.

Let me ask you, is a large male kneeling to straddle a small female's chest and strangling her "not immediate" or "not serious"?

I was not standing there when the threat arose. I responded to a 911 call in which a struggle could be heard in the background.

While I normally support the questioning of police actions, and while I fully admit that there are bad cops out there, I am beginning to think that you are sorely misinformed about many aspects of police work.

Police draw chalk outlines around people.

Like this for example. Do they actually do this in your area? Where I work, when there is a dead body, they bring in people with multi-thousand dollar cameras to photograph everything. I've never once seen a chalk outline in real life.

They almost NEVER do. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE unless they're detailed to protect that individual or the victim is INCREDIBLY lucky.

You are aware of the 911 emergency phone system? People call for help. The police show up. Often, the police get there too late. Sometimes, the police get there in time to stop violence or prevent the furtherance of violence. In either latter case, the police protected an individual from harm or worse harm than they had already received.

 

[Deanimator]

Let me ask you, is a large male kneeling to straddle a small female's chest and strangling her "not immediate" or "not serious"?

If she'd shot him, he wouldn't have BEEN "straddling" her.

If she wasn't incapacitated or dead by the time you got there, you were either already there or he took considerable time doing what he was doing.

Anybody who relies upon the police for their immediate physical safety is either foolish or forced to by law.

And personally, I really couldn't care less if the cops draw a chalk outline around my corpse, photograph it, or carve it in bas relief out of marble. I'm still dead, and unless I protect MYSELF, that's what's overwhelmingly likely to happen.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

Here's my two cents. On duty, you are pretty well stuck carrying how many rounds you are told to carry.

Off duty, NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. Turn duty magazines back in to the armory.

Active duty military is given no exception off duty, why should LEOs get one just because they spent 20 years drawing a pay check.

 

[mookiie]

The "active shooters" mostly remain active until they decide to shoot themselves. You'll need a MUCH better excuse to create a caste system in this country.

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Police don't protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who don't protect themselves.

If you're not willing and able to protect yourself and those entrusted to your care, you're just not going to get protected AT ALL.

Anybody who tells you any different is a liar.

Great quote!

 

[mookiie]

Quote:
Police draw chalk outlines around people.

Like this for example. Do they actually do this in your area? Where I work, when there is a dead body, they bring in people with multi-thousand dollar cameras to photograph everything. I've never once seen a chalk outline in real life.

I think you missed the point being made that 95 percent of the time police respond it is AFTER a crime has been committed.

 

[Deanimator]

You are aware of the 911 emergency phone system?

You mean the 911 "emergency phone system" that demanded that a Detroit woman put the man who shot her on the line?

911 is a communications system of variable efficacy, NOT a matter transporter or a time machine.

In order for a cop to show up at your location a LOT of things have to go right. If ANY of the following happens they might NOT, or not before it doesn't matter.

• Your assailant has to LET you use the phone.
• Your phone has to WORK.
• 911 has to WORK.
• 911 has to NOT be overloaded AT THAT MOMENT.
• The 911 operator has to NOT put you on hold.
• The 911 operator has to NOT hang up on you.
• The 911 operator has to NOT demand that you put the person trying to kill you on the line.
• You have to be able to communicate with the 911 operator while your assailant is TRYING TO KILL YOU.
• 911 has to communicate with police.
• 911 has to give police the CORRECT location.
• There have to be police TO respond. What happens when there are five police worth of crimes and four police to respond to them?
• The police actually have to bother to respond.
• Traffic can't prevent the police from reaching your location IN TIME.
• The police have to go to the CORRECT location.
• The police have to do something when they get to the correct location.
• Your assailant has to twiddle his thumbs waiting for the police, after ALLOWING you to call them.

This isn't "Doctor Who", the cops aren't timelords and they don't drive TARDISes. They can't keep doing it over until you DON'T die.

Of course maybe that doctor's family in Connecticut AREN'T really dead. Maybe neither is my godsister in Chicago.

Only fools and small children believe that the police will protect them as individuals. I'm neither.

 

[waterhouse]

Anybody who relies upon the police for their immediate physical safety is either foolish or forced to by law.

On this, we agree.

If she wasn't incapacitated or dead by the time you got there, you were either already there or he took considerable time doing what he was doing.

Family or dating violence often takes place over a relatively long period of time. What starts with a verbal altercation can turn into punches and bodies being thrown around, and it can end with people trying to kill each other. This process can take 5 minutes to an hour. Other than perhaps drunk people fighting, family/dating violence is probably the most common violence in society and therefore one of the most common for police to come into contact with. Often someone grabs a phone and dials 911 only to have the phone taken away from them.

When I go to work, my wife is armed, because I don't trust her safety to police response time. That said, you are completely wrong if you think that police don't protect people and merely show up after the fact to draw chalk lines and take reports.

Showing up late and taking reports does happen; it happens all the time. For you to sit there and type that it is the only outcome and that police never intervene to prevent violent situations is beyond my comprehension.