I'll try to answer this for you.

That "attitude" is a posture most officers use to gain an advantage over a subject they are confronting. Sometimes, it doesn't work and a fight ensues. Most of the time, however, it does work by intimidating a subject and making them think twice before starting anything. Remember, the goal is for the officer to go home at the end of their shift, and the subject not to get hurt. That's the ideal scenerio.

In most jurisdictions, you are an officer, 24/7. A lot of places require their officers to be armed even when off duty. And, there is also a mandate to take action if need be.

Also, when off-duty, cops tend to be around other cops since John Q. Public tend to either shy away from associating with cops, or, in a worst case scenerio, become confrontational. Maybe they'd been arrested, had some other bad experience, or just wants to flex their own muscles a bit. It's also easier to be around other cops because they know what you go through, day in and day out.

It's a tough job to just turn off when no longer on duty. Plus, the things you deal with, and see, on a daily basis hardens you. It is very easy to look at non-officers as someone to be wary of. Also, try to remember that officers not only "get" to arrest people for breaking laws, they have to deal with a wide range of things that most people only see on the news. Abused women and children. Mutilated bodies. Things that don't really affect people unless you are dealing with it first hand. The news can only bring you the story. They can't bring you the feeling of watching a baby die due to some abuse.

Right or wrong, that's the way it is sometimes. Hopefully, I was able to explain it accurately.

 

only because he pulled an illegally concealed weapon and shot the guy instead of taking a beat down......

 

You consider being choked a beat down?

 

I've been following this and the other thread on the subject from the beginning and have found it an interesting debate. I have refrained from putting in my $.02 because I'm just too remote from the general situation back in the old home country. My tendency has been to pretty much fly the edge of the envelope on this one but I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing comments Stro when you said "Just didn't seem like a smart place for us to be at that time." Setting aside all the constitutional rights issues as to ccw, 3 piece patches, etc. etc. ad nausea. You gotta ask yourself, what did you see that your fellow LEO's (the IP's in this case) didn't? As one of our forum posters very appropriately uses as his signature motto 'stupid should hurt.' For me, a HA getting popped - it should happen more often. But those IP's got themselves into a confrontational situation (right's or no right's) and I can't help but get that creepin' feelin' they just showed amazingly poor judgement for guys that are paid to march to a higher standard. Doesn't it worry you they might have just felt a bit arrogant carrying? MM

 

OK beat down then choked...

Still find it amusing.....

 

I wonder what the general consensus would be had this not been a cop involved. What if it was just some rider, like any of us, that happened to have a riding club patch on instead of a 3 piece? Would his being illegally armed matter that much to you? What about using it to defend his life?

Like someone else said. I'd rather by judged by twelve than carried by six.

 

Right up until someone gets shot for it.

IMHO an appropriate response to being choked.



Great questions/observations Mad Mike.

 

I know what you mean Mike. Totally get your point (and many others who've made the same point). I suppose it's possible that the IP's had been inside long before there were any 81's present. I'm reasonably sure they had no idea what was about to happen. Were they being arrogant? I do not know.

 

I think the men on the side of the law wearing patches is an interesting issue. While a lot of the posts have implied that if we undress these men, it was what it was. But when we put on the clothes, and the "professions" of their lives, it becomes a totally different situation.

If this were an accountant, and a walmart greeter, and say the greeter jumped the accountant when he was going to the bathroom, and the accountant shot the greeter, who would we say was in the right, wrong, etc? Seems easy.

I think the dressing of the men involved has so much to do with this. Especially men of the law that wear patches. The question: Why DO they wear patches. Their answer: Because we can. Well, of course any reasonable person would consider there is more to it than that. I've heard it said from friends, and in movies, and read in articles, that there is sometimes a "fine line" between the law and the rebel!

On the one side, the rebel, 1%er, whatever the pigeonhole, we have bad azz men dressing in their "uniform", leather jacket with signals on it that says who they are, where their territory is, etc.

On the other side - same thing, except ON DUTY the uniform is "blue" with a badge, who they work for, etc.

I'm not for or against either side here. I just find some of the finite issues interesting.

So, I personally don't believe there is a cop on this planet that think that if he wears a vest with patches on it in the same manner that HA has for all these years that they are NOT "portraying" the same image. In fact some may WANT to portray the same image. It is simply common sense. And in fact, psychologically, that fine line IS there. The cops have to be bad azzes to do their job, the HA has to be bad azzes to be who they are. It is, in fact a fine line, just different outcomes!

Now these two have come together in an altercation, and BECAUSE of what they wear, and who they are, it has become much more complicated.

Why WOULD a cop, knowing what he IS portraying, knowingly put himself in front of the "enemy" and not think something bad would happen? Why would an HA stick around, knowing this could only end badly?

So here they both sit in a bar. One has been there and decided they are going to hold their ground. The other walks in "because they can" and decides they, just as much as anyone, belongs there.

Now we all know those are not sensible, or reasonable reasons to be around each other at all, each knowing the others, and the relationship for all these years. IF...IF no one wanted any trouble, one or the other, doesn't matter which, both are equal right now IMO, need to take themselves out of the picture. Period.

But, really, I do find the issues of the matter facinating, and all the issues do make it really pretty complicated, and I'm sure the DA is going over all the complications too!!

I will be interested to see what the final decision is. And either way the decision goes, someones going to blame the other side, for sure!!

 

A question I've been pondering this whole time...

It's been stated as fact that the IP were in the bar first....

So

When the HA walked in and saw it occupied by coppers, why didn't they just turn around and leave? Why did they stay AND call for more backup? I mean were they really afraid of 5-6coppers sitting in a bar?

I wonder....

**This question isn't posted to get a reponse to the actual question**