Local Law Enforcement

[johnp 45]

You know what cracks me up, they post a DUI check point in the paper like three days before and dumb azz's still drive through it.

 

Paper? You mean like a newspaper? They still print those things?

[Underdog 1,593]

Hence why arguing with some people is pointless. I buy guns shoot them have fun and talk about it. If I wanted to argue laws with the public who mostly hate me then I will just go to work.

 

This is ridiculous. Police are not hated by the public. I for one don't hate the police. The police have a role to function as peace officers. It is not their duty to save the public at large from itself. And, although there is no law against looking in someone's vehicle as they pass without probable cause, it is an unwarranted and inappropriate use of power to randomly stop motorists, etc. at these check points. And, just as in OTHER professions, the police have a standard to live up to. Since I hold those in uniform to such a high level of esteem, I think that things like this are damaging to the law enforcement profession (although it keeps their children eating pizza). I would rather that they spend their time finding out whose throwing rocks down on cars than in causing me (and approximately 2000 other citizens) to lose 20 minutes of my time. And, since I don't read and/or support newspapers that spew liberal nonsense, I must have missed the advertised check point. And, as long as you are going to twist my original post, although I wasn't taking a sick child to the hospital, that time that was taken from me unjustly, rather than unlawfully, could have made the difference for my family.

[Underdog 1,593]

I joined this forum yesterday and I have heard the word "constitution" thrown around more in the past 24 hours than in my entire life...

 

Good for you.... And Constitutionally Speaking, welcome. I wish you a happy and healthy constitution.

[Underdog 1,593]

A much more interesting and intriguing question than the current discussion in this thread is related to this statement.

 

Why is it that a cop is perceiving that the public "mostly hate [him]" in his own words? What has caused this? Is public perception towards cops mostly negative, and if so, what has caused such ire?

 

If I had the time and inclination, I do believe that I could easily pen a lengthy study of the above questions. Too bad I'm not a social historian, hah!

The causes for the reasons behind such strong perceptions are no doubt myriad and complex. I'd wager that the more the civil enforcers (police) are despised and hated by the populace as a whole in any given society, the less "free" that society becomes. It is inversely proportionate. What might such a crude and uninformed hypothesis show if applied to America? I fear that this nation is becoming more draconian as of late.

 

My thoughts, exactly. Thanks for sharing this.

[Underdog 1,593]

So, a policeman enforcing the law and protecting people from themselves is an abuse of power? please explain with something other that saying "cause the constitution says so man.."

 

If you are in law enforcement and your views lead you to feel that that is your job, then I don't want you as a peace officer. Your job is not to protect me from myself.

[Underdog 1,593]

Incidentally, as OP, I did not question the constitutionality of the stop. However, I don't think it was right. Just because it is within the full scope and powers to do so, doesn't mean it is warranted or just. But, since you asked, I think it is harmful to the perception of the public toward the police AND that it is part and parcel of the trend toward a police state, and that, if anything it desensitizes the people, just as in the airports.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

It is about safety too. Jules a word of advice. Don't bother arguing. It's not worth the frustration.

 

Joe, it's not about opposing views, dude you know how this site is and damn you fit in well and are fun to shoot with and just an all around good guy.

 

Now this new guy (hate to put it that way but it is what it is) it's like he take an elitist point of view and all the rest of us are beneath him. That and if we don't bow to his point of view we are wrong. It's not, at least not to me an US and THEM thing, not at all, heck I could care less what anyone does as a profession, doesn't make a bit of difference to me, we all have a job to do and thats it, it's a job to support our habits (list, short list, shorter lists and shortest list ETC. lol) and other things like life in general.

 

It's like arguing about politics, a person is going to have their point of view, you can try to reason with them but in the end it's probably never going to change a persons point of view, I think he need to take a step back and see he's not going to change the viewpoints of the members of this forum.

 

Heck, I like the point counter point conversations we have here, but when someone thinks everyone is wrong and acts like the kid who owns the ball if they don't get there way doesn't do a lot for their position.

 

Who knows he may be a great guy in person, time will tell being it sounds like we will get to meet him at OBRPC down the road if I have read correctly, but here on the forum, hes doing nothing but stepping on his dick as far as I see it. Will still wait to a face to face meet to make a final assessment, don't want to call the "I was picked on as a kid so this is why I do what I do card just yet.. LOL , and no I don't mean any disrespect at all to the LEO's here and there that are nothing like that, just getting the 1 bad apple feeling so far.

[Old School 611]

Every time one of these topics come up I can only think of one thing: " I was only following orders..."

 

Nuremberg Trials!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

[Arbelest 29]

60 year old man shows up at a swim meet for 8-9 year old girls, has a telephoto lens on his camera and proceeds to take pictures of the girls at the swim meet, despite having no children of his own. When asked by one parent what he is doing, he tells them " I think young girls are sexy".

 

Did he break the law??

 

No if he was at a public event, yes if he was at a private swim facility where he is not allowed.

[bulpup 98]

Now I don't want to go sounding like I am calling everyone ignorant, cuz i'm not, but I have to point out a very specific point that is consistently overlooked.

 

Follow the bouncing ball

 

1. NJ has the highest insurance rates in the country.

2. Constituents complain to the politicians

3. Politicians ask insurance companies to lower the rates.

4. Insurance companies say hell no, you don't inspect cars, no effort is made to ticket for seat belts, people tailgate from the top of the state to the bottom and you do nothing about talking about cell phones.

Being the

Guys that pay out the claims they have ALL the data so it can't be argued.

 

5. Politicians tell law ENFORCEMENT to enforce the law.

 

6. LE does so and politicians hope to change the data and get lower insurance rates and claim it for re-election.

 

7. People get delayed at checkpoints and claim it is simply to generate revenue. Boo hoo

 

 

Personally, as an avid Motorcyclist, I would prefer they make their revenue ticketing tailgaters to the the point that all New Jersey finally sees it for the ridiculously unsafe stupidity that it is, but everyone would just blow it off as revenue generation and a violation of their rights.

 

The state would make a fortune though.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan 177]

Lets test your knowledge:

 

60 year old man shows up at a swim meet for 8-9 year old girls, has a telephoto lens on his camera and proceeds to take pictures of the girls at the swim meet, despite having no children of his own. When asked by one parent what he is doing, he tells them " I think young girls are sexy".

 

Did he break the law??

 

This was a very intriguing hypothetical situation. Right away I wanted to say it is illegal because it is disgusting, then my analytical side kicked in and did some research. If the guy taking the pictures was on public property, and he was taking pictures of people (including children) in places (even on private property), provided those places were not places were people would reasonably have an expectation of privacy (like a bathroom, dressing room, inside a home, etc) then it would be legal.

 

LE authority and civil rights, both can be abused. A person hiding behind their civil rights and legal protections in order to cause turmoil or to be a public nuance is just as bad as LE abusing their authority for unjustly or subversive purposes. It happens on both sides, and will always be the "gray area" that is most difficult to address.

 

IMO, it is more an issue of ethics versus government authority and civil rights in this case of the traffic check point. The police were within their authority to do this checkpoint if they had a good reason (seat-belt check mandate, looking for a wanted person, etc), but if they started doing them for fun, or as a form of public punishment by causing traffic jam ups, then ethically they are wrong and unjust.

[Justjules 0]

Now I don't want to go sounding like I am calling everyone ignorant, but I have to point out a very specific point.

 

Follow the bouncing ball

 

1. NJ has the highest insurance rates in the country.

2. Constituents complain to the politicians

3. Politicians ask insurance companies to lower the rates.

4. Insurance companies say hell no, you don't inspect cars, no effort is made to ticket for seat belts, people tailgate from the top of the state to the bottom and you do nothing about talking about cell phones.

Being the

Guys that pay out the claims they have ALL the data so it can't be argued.

 

5. Politicians tell law ENFORCEMENT to enforce the law.

 

6. LE does so and politicians hope to change the data and get lower insurance rates and claim it for re-election.

 

7. People get delayed at checkpoints and claim it is simply to generate revenue. Boo hoo

 

 

Personally, as an avid Motorcyclist, I would prefer they make their revenue ticketing tailgaters to the the point that all New Jersey finally sees it for the ridiculously unsafe stupidity that it is, but everyone would just blow it off as revenue generation and a violation of their rights.

 

The state would make a fortune though.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My point exactly...Yet the OP and several others automatically blame the police and feel they "abused their powers" or "overstepped their boundaries" or "voilated the constitution". i express that point and Im the bad guy stepping on my dick right? oh no wait, Im an elitist as some said cause i have a different opinion on some things, based on my own personal experiences.

[Justjules 0]

This was a very intriguing hypothetical situation. Right away I wanted to say it is illegal because it is disgusting, then my analytical side kicked in and did some research. If the guy taking the pictures was on public property, and he was taking pictures of people (including children) in places (even on private property), provided those places were not places were people would reasonably have an expectation of privacy (like a bathroom, dressing room, inside a home, etc) then it would be legal.

 

LE authority and civil rights, both can be abused. A person hiding behind their civil rights and legal protections in order to cause turmoil or to be a public nuance is just as bad as LE abusing their authority for unjustly or subversive purposes. It happens on both sides, and will always be the "gray area" that is most difficult to address.

 

IMO, it is more an issue of ethics versus government authority and civil rights in this case of the traffic check point. The police were within their authority to do this checkpoint if they had a good reason (seat-belt check mandate, looking for a wanted person, etc), but if they started doing them for fun, or as a form of public punishment by causing traffic jam ups, then ethically they are wrong and unjust.

 

Logical and correct answer. Not a damn thing the police could do to him. Creepy yes, illegal no....My point was to see if a few of you guys took the bait and gave a hypocritical answer after using the word constitution several hundred times in this thread. The man would be perfectly within his right to photograph children at a public event due to your lesser expectation of privacy set forth by the US and NJ courts. The law can be twisted anyway you see fit to argue and used to protect scum or protect innocent people. In my profession I have seen that (and once again this is just my opinion) criminals seem to have more rights than the average citizen.

[Justjules 0]

But since these are fun, I have one for you.

 

I am walking down the sidewalk with my camera. I notice you on a traffic stop, and stand by and film it. You approach me, ask me what I am doing, and for my ID. I continue filming while saying nothing. I don't comply with anything you say. This frustrates you. What happens next?

 

You never answered my question, but Ok Ill bite. 3 scenarios

1) There is absolutely nothing I could do if your actions did not pose an immediate threat to my safety or the occupants of my traffic stop, nor did it interfere with me performing my duties. I simply check my hair, wave and smile at you and the camera.

 

2) I simply pull out my camera phone and start video taping you until you get frustrated and walk away...

 

3)hopefully my traffic stop took place in front of a chemical plant or bridge and Therefore I can articulate how suspicious you looked filming the chemical plant and bridge in my presence so I decided to field check you as a precaution, you know with all the terrorist activity and what not. At the point you refused to answer me several times and produce a valid I.D. (keep in mind you are now the subject of an investigation of possible terrorist activity) I politely inform you that you will be arrested for Obstructing a governmental function if you do not comply with my lawful order to identify yourself and answer my inquiries. I then arrest you and take your camera into evidence and notify the FBI.

 

Most likely I would opt for #1 or #2 preferably #2 cause I have done it before and people hate being filmed for some reason. But this is just an illustration to show you that there is always a way to twist the law and the constitution for fit your agenda, as in the Westboro Baptist Church scum who hide behind the 1st and protest dead soldiers funerals..

[Justjules 0]

If you are in law enforcement and your views lead you to feel that that is your job, then I don't want you as a peace officer. Your job is not to protect me from myself.

 

Unfortunately for you what you want does not matter...Do my job for a few years and you would feel the same way that your protecting the public from themselves..I have seen people do horrible things to one another and themselves, after a few years you tend to get very cynical about it. There are some people that should be required to pass a test and get a permit to reproduce...

[raz-0 1,260]

 

No if he was at a public event, yes if he was at a private swim facility where he is not allowed.

 

Not necessarily. If a private facility has a public event with admission policies with regards to photographing the event, he may be in violation of them and consequently guilty of trespass.

 

Or if the event is in a place with, for example, a permitting requirement for "professional" photography that uses possession of certain types of equipment as the deciding factor, he might be in violation if in possession of that equipment.

 

The real perv will just have a bridge camera with a 36x zoom, rather than an expensive hunk of glass that's like a 4x zoom but gathers lots of light.

 

 

[Duppie 73]

[RubberBullets 65]

[Soju 153]

You never answered my question, but Ok Ill bite. 3 scenarios

1) There is absolutely nothing I could do if your actions did not pose an immediate threat to my safety or the occupants of my traffic stop, nor did it interfere with me performing my duties. I simply check my hair, wave and smile at you and the camera.

 

2) I simply pull out my camera phone and start video taping you until you get frustrated and walk away...

 

3)hopefully my traffic stop took place in front of a chemical plant or bridge and Therefore I can articulate how suspicious you looked filming the chemical plant and bridge in my presence so I decided to field check you as a precaution, you know with all the terrorist activity and what not. At the point you refused to answer me several times and produce a valid I.D. (keep in mind you are now the subject of an investigation of possible terrorist activity) I politely inform you that you will be arrested for Obstructing a governmental function if you do not comply with my lawful order to identify yourself and answer my inquiries. I then arrest you and take your camera into evidence and notify the FBI.

 

Most likely I would opt for #1 or #2 preferably #2 cause I have done it before and people hate being filmed for some reason. But this is just an illustration to show you that there is always a way to twist the law and the constitution for fit your agenda, as in the Westboro Baptist Church scum who hide behind the 1st and protest dead soldiers funerals..

 

I'd hope you'd go with either 1 or 2, but the fact you even mention the 3rd option is scary...because even based on said hypothetical you even hint at your reasoning being a bunch of bologna.

 

Edit: Nevermind, you didn't hint at it being bologna, you outright said it.

 

Not a damn thing the police could do to him. Creepy yes, illegal no...

 

Good thing we now have you admitting that you might intentionally arrest someone for something you know to not be illegal...because you can. Not surprising, I've seen it a hundred times.

[Justjules 0]

Not necessarily. If a private facility has a public event with admission policies with regards to photographing the event, he may be in violation of them and consequently guilty of trespass.

 

Or if the event is in a place with, for example, a permitting requirement for "professional" photography that uses possession of certain types of equipment as the deciding factor, he might be in violation if in possession of that equipment.

 

The real perv will just have a bridge camera with a 36x zoom, rather than an expensive hunk of glass that's like a 4x zoom but gathers lots of light.

 

Well now your getting way too much into it. Were talking about Laws, not even policy on photography. The same laws that allow people to sit there and videotape cops on the street, allow perverts to video tape your kids at play...Think about it.

[Justjules 0]

I'd hope you'd go with either 1 or 2, but the fact you even mention the 3rd option is scary...because even based on said hypothetical you even hint at your reasoning being a bunch of bologna.

 

LOL...You wanna be a wise a**, Im gonna be one right back atcha.

[johnp 45]

I've tried to keep my feet dry in this pissing match, but I have to say your 3rd scenario disgusts me. You would use the ruse of terrorism to possibly ruin someones life who is simply video-taping you?

[woodentoe 14]

 

Unfortunately for you what you want does not matter...Do my job for a few years and you would feel the same way that your protecting the public from themselves..I have seen people do horrible things to one another and themselves, after a few years you tend to get very cynical about it. There are some people that should be required to pass a test and get a permit to reproduce...

 

I've been reading the majority of your posts. And while I'm not going to accuse you of stepping on your dick, as colorful of an expression as it is...

 

I find it remarkable that you spend what seems to be a lot of energy to point out the board members here as having an "Us vs Them" mentality. Or the fact that you perceive everyone here to be anti cop.

 

What my opinion is...I have never seen a better example of an "Us vs Them" mentality than the one presented by you. Every shred of what you have posted here points to the perception that there are police... And then there is everyone else. The notion that you exist to protect me from myself assigns a separation of LE into a position of inherent superiority.

 

It is a shame that being on the job has produced this view in you. However, don't be surprised when you come to a public forum populated with the so-called 'animals', and your worldview gets pushback.

 

And, if you take my comment to mean that I loathe police officers, then you are truly misguided. Shelve the god complex, sir. I will respect you all the more for it.

 

-James

[Soju 153]

I've tried to keep my feet dry in this pissing match, but I have to say your 3rd scenario disgusts me. You would use the ruse of terrorism to possibly ruin someones life who is simply video-taping you?

 

If I had my other computer I could show you links to over a hundred different videos of exactly that. Sad ain't it.

[Tactical Monkey 51]

Jules - let me make this easy for you.

 

90% of the people on this forum are "switched on". We know the laws. We understand the laws. We have discussed them ad naseam.

 

We know them because we own firearms in a state based on firearm regulations and a "substantially identical" clause. Where at every turn their are situations which could potentially result in the loss of right (read: priviledge in NJ) for us to keep them. We are not the sheep who you may deal with on a personal level - day in, and day out, at your ocupation of choice.

 

You may have some great insights to offer here and we would appreciate them. You are definitely entitled to your opinons (as is everyone else) , but I ask you to settle down, settle in, and get a feel for the vibe here. A lot of us are mellow shooting enthusiasts. I'm sure you are as well, otherwise why would you join a njgunforum.com in the first place.

 

Thank you for your service as a LEO, but just take it down a notch.

[Justjules 0]

I've been reading the majority of your posts. And while I'm not going to accuse you of stepping on your dick, as colorful of an expression as it is...

 

I find it remarkable that you spend what seems to be a lot of energy to point out the board members here as having an "Us vs Them" mentality. Or the fact that you perceive everyone here to be anti cop.

 

What my opinion is...I have never seen a better example of an "Us vs Them" mentality than the one presented by you. Every shred of what you have posted here points to the perception that there are police... And then there is everyone else. The notion that you exist to protect me from myself assigns a separation of LE into a position of inherent superiority.

 

It is a shame that being on the job has produced this view in you. However, don't be surprised when you come to a public forum populated with the so-called 'animals', and your worldview gets pushback.

 

And, if you take my comment to mean that I loathe police officers, then you are truly misguided. Shelve the god complex, sir. I will respect you all the more for it.

 

-James

 

Uh, no..I was not calling you or anyone on here animals...There are normal people in this world and there are animals in this world. You tell me you dont know the type of person I was referring to?? And before we go down that road, let me clarify I was not talking about any specific race or religion.. There are some people who just dont know how to fit in society and make their own rules and morals, we all have seen them. They would just as soon push an old lady down on the sidewalk to take her purse. Or molest a kid, or rape a woman, or shoot each other in the streets over drug turf...They act like animals not humans...Unless anyone on this forum is acting like that on their own time, then I was not refferring to any of you.

 

Furthermore I classify you guys in the same category as me, I dont know where the "elitist" comments came from? We are all normal, law abiding citizens who like guns. I share a few different opinions than the rest of you so you feel you need to bash me and call me an elitist for it? pathetic that Im not entitled to my own opinions.

 

Also my opinion of "you cant fight city hall" is just that, my opinion from having seen from first hand experience people go against the grain of politics and fight the system and loose. I dont make the rules, I just realized a long time ago, I cant change them. Politics has dug it claws into every aspect of our lives including law enforcement..I can tell you the average cop can not fully and effectively do his job without politics being involved and it is like that in every profession in this state..

[Justjules 0]

just take it down a notch.

 

You should be asking the same form the people who feel they need to judge me and label me an elitist cause my opinion differs from theirs on a few topics..If we dont like NJ gun laws, move out of NJ its that simple and my opinion is we are not going to change a thing in this state, it only going to get more liberal and worse as time goes on.

[Justjules 0]

I'd hope you'd go with either 1 or 2, but the fact you even mention the 3rd option is scary...because even based on said hypothetical you even hint at your reasoning being a bunch of bologna.

 

Edit: Nevermind, you didn't hint at it being bologna, you outright said it.

 

 

 

Good thing we now have you admitting that you might intentionally arrest someone for something you know to not be illegal...because you can. Not surprising, I've seen it a hundred times.

 

Your quoting from something out of context, get it straight first.

[Tactical Monkey 51]

I hope you read my whole post, and didn't just focus on how I ended it, which was meant to be in jest.

[johnp 45]

 

Can I ask you what town or county you are a cop in?