Mike, I know where you stand, and that post back a few was not a shot at YOU. I think I covered myself there.

Respect? I'm not the one seeking respect, by a long shot, believe me. You'll respect me because of the way I treat you, which will be with respect. And dignity. I can go on forever about who respects what and why.
No copper NEEDS your respect, don't turn this into "What's Gump's outlook on the men in blue" thread....Are you a teacher Gump? Or a Professor? I only ask because it seems you like to jump on the podium and share or "teach to us" your feelings on grander issues. We're talking about this one isolated incident, and you guys want to broadstroke EVERY copper incident, and roll it into this one, no problem.

Yet noone has answered the question.
Did this man have the right to defend himself?

You all need to go and re-read my stuff here, please, I beg you. I never once posted that I'm blinding standing behind the copper, BASED SIMPLY ON THE FACT THAT HE'S A COPPER! And neith did any other outspoken copper member here. Basic reading comprehension is all I and others asked of you. I said I did my own "investigation", used some connections and GOT THE FACTS first. Then I removed all the "frill"(copper in a bar, with a gun, with colors etc etc)and looked at it in it's most basic form, THE FACTUAL event of a man defending himself against a deadly physical force encounter.

Geez, I totally agree with ALL comments about how a copper should carry himself and the higher standard and the greater expectation and blah blah blah...

Did you guys not READ when I said I agreed with a HA shooting a Pagan in self defense? Did you not read the part where I said I looked at what I know to be the facts BEFORE coming on here and defedning his actions..
Did you not read that I've asked over and over for you guys to get to the core issue here, a man defended himself against a deadly physical force attack.


Dope man, you've been trying valiently to turn the story around and use my own analogies against me...LOL too funny, but your reasoning in the last one is flawed...
The copper has yet to be proven that he was drunk, he wasn't running his mouth off, he wasn't acting badass in front of his friends, if I came up behind you and attacked you, you'll get your *** kicked too, and as it's been proven already, he did "dish it out" just fine it would seem. The grand jury TRIED to use some of the personal feelings to charge the guy, and once the DA actually sat down and appied the LAW, charge started dropping....it's no coincidence, trust me.
And, try to do better on the rebuttals....stick with the FACTS before posting.

 

I dont know I am surprised there are alot of issues like this. I have met some cool Kats (LEO's) that are good guys. But judgment is kind of iffy with them. Heard a story about a bunch of them going out to a "meeting" and not able to ride home because there so wasted. I dont know I think a L.E.M.C. should hold themselves at the least to a higher standard. This cop should be held to a higher standard because of what he is..A cop. If you get out of the military you are no longer held to a John Q. Public standard, your a killing machine now, Trained to fight, trained to kill, well so are these officers now a day. They train to shoot all day and uphold the law, but how many do you see actually walk around, shake hands with people out of a sign of respect, not because there cops, but because they are their to protect you.

 

Just out of curiosity for those who carry, or who have carried -

After having a few beers, did you ever feel a little more secure mouthing off to someone knowing you had "backup" in case things got out of hand?
Not around a 1%er club or anything, just in a bar with some other guys.
Not a question. Just something to ponder.

 

You really just don't get it. So sad.

 

Personally I think that because of the IP's stance in that they believe they are of the "outlaw" type of persuasion (of which they're not, and if so then they shouldn't have their jobs) (gotta be on one side of the fence or the other) that they went in looking for acknowledgment from the "real deal", or it was an "in your face" type of thing, and that they got called on it, and found out that couldn't deal with the situation, period.

The IP's are an embarrassment to their own and should be booted, from their positions period.
This type of BS should not be tolerated at any cost. (bad for the public image)

Again;

LEOS should be held to a higher standard than JQ Public.

 

Good morning Irish; I been sitting here waiting for you to wake up after having tucked you in last night - have a bit of a hangover do we? Nobody ever said we Irish don't like to put up a good argument
As you know, I been following both these threads since the gitgo so am well aware of what your opinion is and the research you seem to have done into it. I reckon in a lot of ways we're both pushing against an open door here but again I've got to comeback on a couple of things you've just said; issue is not whether or not he was drunk, or whether he was mouthing off, minding his own business, not looking for a fight, right to be in the bar, licensed to ccw or, his right to wear colors. My personal opinion was that as a cop he just should have exercised better judgement in going in that particular bar wearing what he was wearing PERIOD! That's all I've been saying. As for the rest of the postings in this and the other thread, I've rather enjoyed it. Some I've agreed with, from both sides of the fence - got to respect a man with a well put argument. A lot have been cheap shots - and I like to get my .02 of sarcasm in whenever I can too. Guess I'll miss this when it all winds down. Can't some biker go out and instigate a new fight now - then we can whip that one to death too.

 

No, Mike, I'm not even going to try any more. I give up. You're and yours aren't going to be swayed by any measure of common sense that I, or Irish, or any other LEO on this board try to apply to this situation, so I'll just "agree to disagree" with you guys.

Hey Irish, I have a copy of a letter written by ATF Assistant Director Larry Ford (dated 9-11-08) to the National FOP that states the ATF official stance on 218. It IS in effect, it HAS been implemented, and the "spokewoman" quoted in the RCJ was out of line. PM me if you'd like a copy. You may be able to access it on the front page of the National FOP website.

 

I like this one.

More than likely what happened.

 

Come on now Stro, there ain't a me and mine. I've stated my own personal opinion and in many instances agreed with both you and Irish. But I think some of the opposition have made some good valid points too. Trouble is there's been a lot of cheap shots, many which were uncalled for but you can't just give up because of that. I thought developing a thick skin was like pre-requisite 101 at the Academy? If you do bail out now, I'll catch ya again at the next interesting thread. Peace

 

+1

I'll tell ya another one. Most of your "real outlaw" clubs police themselves quite well.
They also have a reputation to maintain, and know if they get too far out of line that the proverbial **** will come down on them.

They mostly do not want to be seen in a bad light in the public's eye.
They know how they are perceived by the public.
On the other hand the IP's want to be seen as "outlaw types", but in reality are not.

I've known a few 1 %ers that were chastized because of drunken behavior in public and were made to go on the wagon, and put on probation, etc.
Am I excusing or minimizing their behavior in general ?
Hardly...
They know who they are, and that is why they do not cooperate with whom they perceive the "other side" to be.
Why would they?