Posted on 05/27/2004 4:01:55 PM PDT by bleach
The television show Cops stopped filming in Cincinnati today after council members objected to what the show might depict.
Cincinnati Police Chief Tom Streicher changed his mind Thursday about letting the Fox TV show crews continue to film, which they had started Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at enquirer.com ...
Really do you have a particular Article in mind?
If you believe in everyone's right to protect themselves, would you choose to arrest person if they were responsibly carrying a firearm even though the act of them doing so might be in violation of your state's laws?
Haha, your "the guy with no shirt" is great! I've also noticed that no one has ever had more than two beers.
Yes, because in my oath of office, I placed my hand on the bible and recited the words that included the phrase "though I disagree with the law". This is the tough thing about being a Police Officer. Sometimes I have to do things I simply do not like or agree with, but have to because the law directs me too. The problem I run into, is if I don't arrest that person, and someone does get hurt by him or her with that gun, the Sheriff is going to call me into his office and demand to know why this person was not charged. I also would have opened not only myself, but the County, the Sheriff, the Sheriff's Office, my Lieutenant, and my Sergeant to a class action law suit, not to mention possible criminal charges for not doing my job. You can bet my job would be finished, and my career ended. I would have no choice.
I will observe one thing and you can tell me if I'm wrong.
The cops I know and have interacted with are very good people, a far larger percentage than in the world as a whole. However there are some rotten apples, it only stands to reason.
My only observative is that the "cop code" doesn't allow the good guys to rat out (for lack of a better word) the bad guys. Thus the bad guys have to do something really, really bad before they're removed.
Maybe it's that they don't really do anything bad enough to warrent removal or even something else, but I think I see this. Am I off base?
I have not seen anyone do anything what one would call really bad. When out on calls, I have seen officers who were perhaps not as sensitive to the vicitm as they should have been, but we handle that by talking to them in private away from others. Officers quite often Police themselves.
If I saw someone doing something unethical, thank God so far I haven't, I would report it. The Law must be respected and followed to the letter, even by those who enforce it.
That's good to know and again, thanks, I don't see how you can do it and deal with the scum you do and retain a civil outlook at the rest of the world.
"I don't see how you can do it and deal with the scum you do and retain a civil outlook at the rest of the world."
This isn't always easy to do. Especially when people are constantly accusing us of violating the Constitution, or worse.
Kind of a long and pointless story but I'm good at those....
Many years ago I was on a rural highway NE of Waco. I was sure I was outside of the city limits, I hadn't seen a sign but I hadn't seen a building for miles so I put the hammer down and speeded up to 75.
About that time I noticed a cop in the opposite lane. No worries, the speed limit for rural roads is 75 in Texas.
Alas, I was not even close to the city limits sign, the speed limit was "city" 55 and I got pulled over.
I was pretty miffed, mostly at myself but I didn't think of taking it out on the officer. While he was my junior I still did the Taxas standard manners of yes sir and no sir. I certainly wasn't rude, but I don't recall being overly nice, just used the manners my Ma and Pa taught me.
After he handed me the ticket he said "I want to thank you for being so nice and courteous, I don't get that much and I really appreciate it."
Haha, I thought that in that case he could give me give me a warning instead....
It struck me that here's a guy that gets a ration of grief I can't even imagine to the point where simple manners makes an impression on him. After all, it wasn't his speed limit, it wasn't his city limit sign.
It's kind of a simple thing but before I got to know some cops it was the thing that first made me think about how hard it must be and that was just a simple traffic stop.
"Though I disagree with the law" is not being very honest with yourself, the citizen's whose rights you have sworn to uphold, or the God whose Bible you placed your hand on.
The problem with today's LEO's is they are just that, Law Enforcement Officers. They lack the capacity to understand the concept of officer descretion.
The fact that you believe in an individual's right to responsibly protect themselves, yet you would choose to deny them that right because it might affect you on a personal or professional level speaks volumes.
It can be. No doubt.
You can berate me if you choose. You can criticize and accuse me if you choose, but the fact remains, I don't have a responsibility to gun owners, but to all people. My job is keeping the peace, I am not keeping the peace if I allow a person carrying a gun who is also terrorizing people, even if the person was simply by carrying the gun. I took an oath to enforce ALL of the laws, not just the laws I pick and choose to enforce. To do anything less, means I am not doing my job completely. I have already received an accomodation in my 1 year of service, so I must be doing something right. Yes there is a such thing as Officer descretion, however, regardless of what you hear or might think, not everything allows you the freedom to exercise Officer descretion.
But you do have a responsiblity to gun owners as most of them are the same people that you are sworn to protect.
How is arresting someone who chooses to responsibly carry a weapon, even though it may be violating the laws you are sworn to uphold, serve the public interest? And how does responsibly carrying a weapon equate with terrorizing people?
"How is arresting someone who chooses to responsibly carry a weapon, even though it may be violating the laws you are sworn to uphold, serve the public interest? And how does responsibly carrying a weapon equate with terrorizing people?"
____________________________________________________________
I will deal with the first question first. Which kind of person would you rather have wearing the badge? The person who allows his personal feelings and agenda dictate how he enforces the law, saying something to this effect," You know, I just don't agree that murder is wrong, so I am not going to arrest anyone I have probable cause to believe they have murdered an individual, because he appears to have completed this act responsibly, he or she did not kill anyone but his or her intended victim." Or would you rather have a person who says I must enforce the law impartially, so I will arrest anyone I have probable cause to believe to have commited a crime? You see, your logic of not enforcing the law in regards to someone who is responsibly carrying a fire arm is seriously flawed. I will explain. The rapist and pedofile would argue, "If I don't violently attack and kill my victims, and use condoms, then I have acted responsibly; therefore I should not be arrested." The drug dealer would argue,"I sale my drugs only to those who desire these drugs, therefore I have acted responsibly and should not be arrested, even if this drug influenced person goes home and ax murders his entire family during a drug induced hallucination, I am still covered by responsibility because I did not force this individual to buy and ingest these drugs and I certainly did not force this person's family to live under the same roof with this drug influenced individual." Frankly, having a person who does not enforce the law with someone who appears to have acted responsibly is not only wrong but unfair to the whole of society. I have taken an oath, which I have come to understand by your comments, you don't seem to understand. I will say this again just as I did earlier, I promised to enforce ALL of the laws not just the ones I agree with or believe the offender has acted responsibly, and I intend to keep my promise, because I said I would, end of story. My first responsibility as a Police Officer is for the good of the whole of society FIRST, then to the individual. Besides, a responsible gun owner will not be wearing his firearm so as to terrorize people anyway.
I will now address the second question. Have you been hiding under a rock since September 11, 2001 and the Columbine killings? Anyone who is carrying a gun, or any other kind of weapon is going to terrorize people. I don't care how responsible acting the wearer of the gun is. We are in a time and place in our society when I am called out to investigate a "suspicious" person, who happens to be walking down the side of road, carrying his groceries in a direction away from the local grocery store.
Understatement of the century. I was watching the Stanley Cup finals game last night when they came in with "breaking news" of a mini-riot in progress and my first thought was "this is news? There is one of these a day, don't interupt until there are a dozen dead and the toll is rising." Cincinnati is the new Hellmouth.
I especially hate it when the cop tries to be a preacher.
"Anyone who is carrying a gun, or any other kind of weapon is going to terrorize people. "
What the!?!?!?!
So I'm a terrorist now? I suppose YOU are one too because if you're a cop and carry one!
Somebody needs to take some more classes in Constitutional law. If what you say is true, the police departments portrayed would be nailed with Section 1983 lawsuits right and left, and the evidence would be indisputable. But that's not what happens, so your premise is obviously flawed.
I always wonder where he gets the patience to deal with the Village Idiots (aka City Clowncil) on a daily basis. I have heard him speak to Republican groups and although he is diplomatic about it, he makes no bones about his low opinion of the Idiots. Anyone on here know how the next chief is to be selected? Is it purely a call by the city manager, mayor or does Clowncil get to muck it up (though not saying the city manager and mayor will make a wise decision on their own either)? All I can say is that the next chief will not be from that racist purple wearing Catholic school on the west side (I am being extremely sacrastic, as anyone from this area will know from recent Clowncil blatherings).
I got to know Streicher professionally back in 1992, during the cross "controversy" on the Square. He was in charge of the special ops unit, and spent quite a bit of time using Fifth Thirds camera's to view what was happening during that stuff.
Level headed guy, with a ton of patience. He's a huge leap upward from previous Chief's, like Snowden - who kept his head buried in the sand for his entire tenure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.