How much more dangerous are open carriers with badges?

[Primus]

This is a very interesting admission. Again it is confirmed that you know, yet do not attempt to correct.

Not knowing a personal fault exists is very much less repulsive than knowing that a personal fault exists, accepting that it exists, and doing nothing to change the condition.

The not so surprising portion of the statement bolded above is the second half, retaining your views that you know to be wrong.

Not a lot I can say to you any further at this point.

Stay safe.

So I assume you believe that everyone one of your views are 100% correct all the time and that you have no faults? Is that accurate? If so its arrogant. If you can admit (as I did) that you are wrong sometimes and do have personal faults then his are you any different then what I said?

I guess you missed he whole portion about trying to correct those views intentionally.

My bad... I forgot you and everyone else must be gods and have no faults to admit to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[The Truth]

Short explanation is troll...

Exactly. Someone who spouts off knowingly incorrect and extreme statements to entice mentally stable people into irrational argument is defined as a troll. It's not name-calling, that's just what they are.

 

[OC for ME]

Lol cmon brother don't stoop...

"Painting me extreme so your opposite"

That's dumb. I (and anyone else) can point out something as extreme and not have to take the other side.

Difference between you and I is I know I'm biased and have some extreme views. I work to ground myself with guys that keep me in reality and keep my centered. I know my faults and that some of my views are wrong.

You fail to even realize your faults. You just throw around catch phrases like "liberty" and think your a hero.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

For reference and context.

So I assume you believe that everyone one of your views are 100% correct all the time and that you have no faults? Is that accurate? If so its arrogant. If you can admit (as I did) that you are wrong sometimes and do have personal faults then his are you any different then what I said?

I guess you missed he whole portion about trying to correct those views intentionally.

My bad... I forgot you and everyone else must be gods and have no faults to admit to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You did not state that you try to correct those views. You stated that

I work to ground myself with guys that keep me in reality and keep my centered.

If you ground yourself with guy that hold similar views to you then there is no need to correct anything, is there.

So I assume you believe that everyone one of your views are 100% correct all the time and that you have no faults?

Never stated it...azz-u-me...rinse and repeat.

Again, hyperbole does a disservice to your often times valid arguments.

Stay safe.

 

[Primus]

For reference and context.

You did not state that you try to correct those views. You stated that If you ground yourself with guy that hold similar views to you then there is no need to correct anything, is there.

Never stated it...azz-u-me...rinse and repeat.

Again, hyperbole does a disservice to your often times valid arguments.

Stay safe.

Well then I apologize. When I said "ground myself" I was referring to speaking with guys such as yourself and others on here.

I've said it before and will say of again it helps correct any wrong views I may have by speaking with guys such as yourself. I do it intentionally to make myself better and hopefully correct those misaligned views.

Thank you for pointing that out. After rereading it I can see how it could have been taken differently then the point I meant to convey.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Interesting 5 fold difference

There have been several studies/reports (some previous reported on these pages) that yes, OCers generally are more safe, practice more, and cause less collateral damage

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html

http://www.gunfacts.info/

The second reference here I couldn't find detailed numbers on that site, so more pointers would definitely be welcome.

The first article reference, by Kopel, is interesting and mentions an 11% (LEO) vs 2% (non-LEO) likelihood of a shooting involving an innocent other party. (I have ordered and am waiting on the book which Kopel cites.)

So from the point of view of another citizen, observing someone nearby with a gun, the probability of being injured by them would appear to be a product of two things: the probability of the person shooting x probability of an innocent person being hit.

This then would imply that the probability of a non-LEO shooting would need to be at least 5 times higher than that of an LEO in the same situation for the risk of the non-LEO to be greater.

Given the documented low crime rate of CCW holders, which would presumably be similar to OCers, this seems unlikely in the extreme, and so overall argues that a person should rationally be more concerned about an LEO (badge carrier) than an non-LEO when seeing an openly carried weapon.

Clearly more direct measurements would be good though. What other data is there to support this sort of argument?

If one knew the number of LEOs versus OCers in an area and the corresponding rate of shootings of innocent people, it seems like a more direct comparison could be made.

 

[mikeyb]

A cop is in harms way every time he pulls over a speeding citizen.

Assumption. Pure conjecture. Opinion based in fear. By this thought process, a citizen is in danger of being shot by every LEO they encounter. Or we're all going to die when we drive home today. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen.

If a cop is in harm's way every time, then there's no reason to pull people over, since LEOs are not obligated to put their lives in harm's way.

Point. Set. Match.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen.

If a cop is in harm's way every time, then there's no reason to pull people over, since LEOs are not obligated to put their lives in harm's way.

I wonder if this discussion would be clearer if considered from the point of view of probabilities, rather than just a no harm's way/ harm's way dichotomy ?

It strikes me that when an LEO gets out of the car, then they are likely to experience some increase in probability of harm, though maybe not too much. A number would be interesting, because it could then be compared to other risks, like being stopped by the police or getting in the bathtub.

 

[Primus]

Assumption. Pure conjecture. Opinion based in fear. By this thought process, a citizen is in danger of being shot by every LEO they encounter. Or we're all going to die when we drive home today. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen.

If a cop is in harm's way every time, then there's no reason to pull people over, since LEOs are not obligated to put their lives in harm's way.

Point. Set. Match.

Can you cite any cases that an on duty police officer shot a person on a traffic stop without ANY provocation? No on going incidents, nothing done or not done by the occupants. Just straight walk up to the car and bam. Dead for the sake of murdering?

I can cite several examples of guys killing officers that way.

So my point still stands.

And your idea about "not obligated to put themselves in harms way" is the dumbest lie still being propagated. They do it every day.... So I guess either they are a bunch of selfless heroes.... Or its their job, meaning they are obligated to. You choose....

Checkmate.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Well then I apologize. When I said "ground myself" I was referring to speaking with guys such as yourself and others on here.

I've said it before and will say of again it helps correct any wrong views I may have by speaking with guys such as yourself. I do it intentionally to make myself better and hopefully correct those misaligned views.

Thank you for pointing that out. After rereading it I can see how it could have been taken differently then the point I meant to convey.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

no apology required. You occupation has provide me insights into your profession. Prompted me to research laws I had not considered relevant OCing. Many thank.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Can you cite any cases that an on duty police officer shot a person on a traffic stop without ANY provocation? No on going incidents, nothing done or not done by the occupants. Just straight walk up to the car and bam. Dead for the sake of murdering?

I can cite several examples of guys killing officers that way.

So my point still stands.

And your idea about "not obligated to put themselves in harms way" is the dumbest lie still being propagated. They do it every day.... So I guess either they are a bunch of selfless heroes.... Or its their job, meaning they are obligated to. You choose....

Checkmate.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Do you consider a old man with a cane provocation???

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ones life is at more risk just driving more then most other activities.

So to make your life a lot safer just give up driving and eliminate both risks.

I read recently walking is more dangerous than driving. I'll have to double check that.

Do you consider a old man with a cane provocation???

Someone seems to be forgetting what the cops did during the Dorner hunt.

 

[OC for ME]

...Someone seems to be forgetting what the cops did during the Dorner hunt.

Those two incidents were justified under criminal law because the vehicles were very very similar, as in they were in California and had four wheels, at the same time. Remember, a ongoing incident, anywhere it seems, is justification to do mag dumps on vehicles in CA, that also have four wheels, at the same time.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Those two incidents were justified under criminal law because the vehicles were very very similar, as in they were in California and had four wheels, at the same time. Remember, a ongoing incident, anywhere it seems, is justification to do mag dumps on vehicles in CA, that also have four wheels, at the same time.

That's it I will have to built a tracked automobile that way they could not be confused unless they are totally corrupt and evil idiots.

 

[The Truth]

Those two incidents were justified under criminal law because the vehicles were very very similar, as in they were in California and had four wheels, at the same time. Remember, a ongoing incident, anywhere it seems, is justification to do mag dumps on vehicles in CA, that also have four wheels, at the same time.

:lol: You got me crackin' up on that one, haha.

 

[mikeyb]

Can you cite any cases that an on duty police officer shot a person on a traffic stop without ANY provocation? No on going incidents, nothing done or not done by the occupants. Just straight walk up to the car and bam. Dead for the sake of murdering?

I can cite several examples of guys killing officers that way.

So my point still stands.

And your idea about "not obligated to put themselves in harms way" is the dumbest lie still being propagated. They do it every day.... So I guess either they are a bunch of selfless heroes.... Or its their job, meaning they are obligated to. You choose....

Checkmate.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

<cough> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19755246CalApp3d6_151

Cops shooting people unprovoked (on/off duty, it doesn't matter)
http://www.tactical-life.com/news/passenger-nypd-shooting-of-driver-unprovoked/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLZF3-o7yNA
http://pix11.com/2014/04/30/drunk-n...rounds-into-car-unprovoked-injuring-driver-2/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...e-football-star-danroy-henry-article-1.187862

and as mentioned earlier, the most recent, inconceivable evidence: http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2013/09/lapd-shoot-unprovoked-at-3-innocent.html

It's almost like there's this vast ocean of information available to us, and all we have to do is look. Not even very hard. I heard there are these websites where you can type in what you're looking for, and they give you pages and pages of information. I guess it makes learning about stuff a lot easier.

 

[solus]

never mind

ipse

 

[wimwag]

Some of you are painting with a broad brush again. What's the thing you guys keep repeating? Ummmm.let me see....passing new laws regulating firearm ownership only affects law abiding citizens. Don't punish the law abiding citizens for the actions of a criminal...right? So following your logic, don't paint all cops as killers and thugs because of the actions of a few...or is it too much to ask that you keep the hypocrisy to a minimum?

 

[MAC702]

... A cop is in harms way every time he pulls over a speeding citizen...

Statistically, he is safer at this time. Most dead cops died in traffic accidents.

 

[The Truth]

LE holds a much different responsibility to society than your average citizen and also has more protections and exceptions to the law, yet LE accountability would seem to be at a low level when it comes to certain rights violations.

Cops perform a duty as a government official and with the power of lethal force, there should be more in place to encourage accountability. I think that's the commonly drawn conclusion here. A cop is only a citizen when he's off duty, otherwise he is an officer of the law.

 

[wimwag]

I'm just going to leave this here...

In post #57, I called you guys out for cop bashing. Now go cry about it.