Shepherds among sheep....

[Scarnucci]

This is where you made your first wrong ASSumption. And you should have responded a different way as the OP is not a LEO!

I would love to have VUPDBlue clear up his affiliation with LEO. From the few posts I have read here and elsewhere it seems like he was LEO in Vincennes.

Any past or present or future LEO affiliations or aspirations?

Listen, Im not trying to beat up on the guy for a fairly innocuous statement. I'm just trying to open some peoples eyes to a bit of the mindset that is out there. You all jumped on the first guy who commented critically to the OP, and he very well may have earned some of that criticism. I do think that some of his comments were important. Important enough to get myself involved and hopefully defend the position a little better.

 

[Cwood]

You simplied stated that he was a LEO and he is not currently one. There is no public paying his paycheck. So therefore he is just a regular joe citizen like the rest of.

As far as the first guy that posted that was a banned member that was looking for some well, we will say pay back.

 

[IndySSD]

I would love to have VUPDBlue clear up his affiliation with LEO. From the few posts I have read here and elsewhere it seems like he was LEO in Vincennes.

To be fair, I was under the same impression
(see what happens when I Ass U Me ?) however it appears that VUPDBlue has stated in subsequent posts that his reference to LEO were geared towards his friends and not himself.

I actually think this fact proves out that you're making a mountain out of a molehill based on semantics.

 

[fordmech_2000]

Sooooooooo..... No mutton then??? sorry baaaahhhhdddd joke

 

[SilentWarrior1]

I think this thread has been read into WAAAAY too much.

This.

If you don't like being called by some name, then don't accept the stereotype. On the same hand, if someone calls you a name of any kind... is it really going to kill you if you know it isn't true? Sticks and stones..

I actually think this fact proves out that you're making a mountain out of a molehill based on semantics.

And this. Better to ask in private than to blurt out in a public forum.

Also, Harried. Two things:

One, you fail. and two, have a nice day.

 

[UncleMike]

I would love to have VUPDBlue clear up his affiliation with LEO. From the few posts I have read here and elsewhere it seems like he was LEO in Vincennes.

Any past or present or future LEO affiliations or aspirations?

Listen, Im not trying to beat up on the guy for a fairly innocuous statement. I'm just trying to open some peoples eyes to a bit of the mindset that is out there. You all jumped on the first guy who commented critically to the OP, and he very well may have earned some of that criticism. I do think that some of his comments were important. Important enough to get myself involved and hopefully defend the position a little better.

WHAT???
Like affiliation with the Police is a negative????
Actually, It's none of your friggin business what his past, present, or future relationship with LEO's consists of.
If you have a hard on for Police that's your problem.
Just don't act like the damn Spanish Inquisitor when you reply to a member.
Mike

 

[Cwood]

To be fair, I was under the same impression
(see what happens when I Ass U Me ?) however it appears that VUPDBlue has stated in subsequent posts that his reference to LEO were geared towards his friends and not himself.

I actually think this fact proves out that you're making a mountain out of a molehill based on semantics.

I will have to agree, he wants to bash cops but the OP is not one so where does his issue lie?

 

[Scarnucci]

You simplied stated that he was a LEO and he is not currently one. There is no public paying his paycheck. So therefore he is just a regular joe citizen like the rest of.

A regular joe citizen who apparently was LEO, and seemingly affiliated himself with LEO as per his first post. Not a big deal. I wasnt suggesting anything untoward in regards to that affiliation, other than that when statements are made such as he did, they require greater scrutiny when LEO is involved.

As far as the first guy that posted that was a banned member that was looking for some well, we will say pay back.

As I said in past posts, I cant keep up with all the "he said, she saids" that go on forum wide, but when I saw an idea or thought being shouted down with disdain as I did, I felt that I had to step up and support it as best I could since I agreed with the post in principle.

 

[SilentWarrior1]

Just don't act like the damn Spanish Inquisitor when you reply to a member.
Mike

 

[UncleMike]

Exactly what I had in mind.
Mike

 

[SilentWarrior1]

Yep. People need to lighten up.

 

[Scarnucci]

WHAT???
Like affiliation with the Police is a negative????
Actually, It's none of your friggin business what his past, present, or future relationship with LEO's consists of.
If you have a hard on for Police that's your problem.
Just don't act like the damn Spanish Inquisitor when you reply to a member.
Mike

Several posts have stated that VUPDBlue is not LEO. I've read here and elsewhere that he was LEO and perhaps is again pursuing that occupation. It would help clear things up once and for all and avoid any misconceptions if he would answer the question. Certainly his forum name alone suggests an affiliation, does it not?

It is relevant to this discussion, in that I believe the attitude of "sheep and shepherds" is important to get out there. I certainly didnt put those words in his mouth. Why did he choose to phrase it that way? Perhaps his affiliation with LEO helped form that opinion?

I don't have a hard on for police. I am married to a wonderful LEO. I've seen her work long hours and struggle emotionally with many of the issues that she has had to deal with to make sure justice was done.

What I do have a hard on for are those who seem to think that they can trample the rights of citizens because of the badge they wear.

Do I have any reason to believe that the folks out for a nice dinner out, both LEO and armed civilians, felt like suppressing the rights of the rest of the eatery as described in the OP?

Nope.

Do I think it is important that the OP considered himself the shepherd along with the rest of the LEOs, and that the unarmed civilians were but mere sheep?

You're damn right I do.

Mike, I'm sorry that you feel that (what I hope is) an intelligent, thoughtful responses to the OP that brings up other discussions is akin the the Spanish Inquisition, in which thousands were murdered and censorship ruled.

I appreciate the comments from some of the other posters regarding the tone I have tried to set with my posts. Im trying not to make this personal, nor take it personally.

 

[ATM]

Paraphrased OP with classic mindset (not specific to LEO) analogy terms:

I went out to dinner this evening with my wife and daughter. We chose a restaurant that was moderately crowded and sat down.

Family was hungry. Mmm... time to eat!

As I looked around I noticed that between myself, a fellow INGOer and 3 of my off-duty police buddies, the sheep were well shepherded....and not a single one of them likely knew it.

I recognize 4 other folks I know here that also normally carry and maintain a level of awareness similar to mine (shepherds/sheepdogs). Hmm. This establishment is actually a much harder target for a bad guy (wolf) than it might seem. This conclusion likely isn't recognized by most of these good folks who rarely even think about such things (sheep).

I just found it interesting that there were at least 5 armed individuals in the building and the world didn't come to an end

I am always amused with the anti-gun rhetoric suggesting this situation would be cause for alarm, or worse - catastrophe.

Made perfect sense to me.

 

[UncleMike]

Several posts have stated that VUPDBlue is not LEO. I've read here and elsewhere that he was LEO and perhaps is again pursuing that occupation. It would help clear things up once and for all and avoid any misconceptions if he would answer the question. Certainly his forum name alone suggests an affiliation, does it not?

It is relevant to this discussion, in that I believe the attitude of "sheep and shepherds" is important to get out there. I certainly didnt put those words in his mouth. Why did he choose to phrase it that way? Perhaps his affiliation with LEO helped form that opinion?

I don't have a hard on for police. I am married to a wonderful LEO. I've seen her work long hours and struggle emotionally with many of the issues that she has had to deal with to make sure justice was done.

What I do have a hard on for are those who seem to think that they can trample the rights of citizens because of the badge they wear.

Do I have any reason to believe that the folks out for a nice dinner out, both LEO and armed civilians, felt like suppressing the rights of the rest of the eatery as described in the OP?

Nope.

Do I think it is important that the OP considered himself the shepherd along with the rest of the LEOs, and that the unarmed civilians were but mere sheep?

You're damn right I do.

Mike, I'm sorry that you feel that (what I hope is) an intelligent, thoughtful responses to the OP that brings up other discussions is akin the the Spanish Inquisition, in which thousands were murdered and censorship ruled.

I appreciate the comments from some of the other posters regarding the tone I have tried to set with my posts. Im trying not to make this personal, nor take it personally.

I've been called everything imaginable during my career and being referred to as a "sheep" is by far the least offensive thing on that list.
It can be a huge mistake to judge other people by your own standards. Our individual perspectives makes doing that a risky venture at best.
I took it that the OP was merely using common vernacular to express his admiration for those who are ready to risk their lives to defend the unarmed Citizenry. Whether they're LEO or any other armed Citizen.
Mike

 

[VUPDblue]

I manage a retail business, FTR...

 

[esrice]

Do I think it is important that the OP considered himself the shepherd along with the rest of the LEOs, and that the unarmed civilians were but mere sheep?

You're damn right I do.

This is the part that may be causing you some confusion.

He wasn't referring to LEOs as the shepherds and the 'civilians' as the sheep. He was referring to the armed people as the shepherds and the unarmed people as the sheep.

This is a common term used among gun enthusiasts, that originally came from this article, that was posted earlier in this thread: On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

It's about mindset, not occupation.

You make some valid points, but in this context in this thread, they don't make much sense.

 

[Scarnucci]

I've been called everything imaginable during my career and being referred to as a "sheep" is by far the least offensive thing on that list.
It can be a huge mistake to judge other people by your own standards. Our individual perspectives makes doing that a risky venture at best.
I took it that the OP was merely using common vernacular to express his admiration for those who are ready to risk their lives to defend the unarmed Citizenry. Whether they're LEO or any other armed Citizen.
Mike

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am trying to express. Its not so much the WORD sheep... Whether you get called a jerk, a-hole, pig, sheep...whatever...isnt the point.

What is important is the connotation involved in describing the masses as the sheep and the armed as the shepherds. I will direct you to my previous post where I described how I took that statement to mean. I may be in the minority here in terms of how I feel about his statement, but I highly doubt that I am alone.

If I dont make a judgment using my own standards, who in the worlds standard should I use? Yours? Is yours somehow inherently better than mine? Some random schmo off the street? Some community organizers?

Yes I have my own perspective. That doesnt mean that my perspective is any more or less valid than yours. Its different and deserves just as much consideration and discussion.

That is fine that YOU took the OP to mean nothing more than just using common vernacular to get his point across. I thought that it was important enough to shine a light on the statement, especially after the reaction that Harried received. Granted, much of that response was probably very likely due to some other history here on the board that I am not privy to.

 

[UncleMike]

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am trying to express. Its not so much the WORD sheep... Whether you get called a jerk, a-hole, pig, sheep...whatever...isnt the point.

What is important is the connotation involved in describing the masses as the sheep and the armed as the shepherds. I will direct you to my previous post where I described how I took that statement to mean. I may be in the minority here in terms of how I feel about his statement, but I highly doubt that I am alone.

If I dont make a judgment using my own standards, who in the worlds standard should I use? Yours? Is yours somehow inherently better than mine? Some random schmo off the street? Some community organizers?

Yes I have my own perspective. That doesnt mean that my perspective is any more or less valid than yours. Its different and deserves just as much consideration and discussion.

That is fine that YOU took the OP to mean nothing more than just using common vernacular to get his point across. I thought that it was important enough to shine a light on the statement, especially after the reaction that Harried received. Granted, much of that response was probably very likely due to some other history here on the board that I am not privy to.

OK
Whatever.
Mike

 

[shooter521]

felt like suppressing the rights of the rest of the eatery as described in the OP?

Read ATM's interpretation above; that's how I, and I'd venture to say most others here, interpreted VUPDblue's post. Further, that's most likely how VUPD himself meant it. I certainly never saw any description of anyone's rights being suppressed.

Webster's defines "shepherd" as a noun meaning "one who tends sheep" or "a pastor", and as a transitive verb meaning "to guide or guard in the manner of a shepherd". (emphasis mine). So the analogy is appropriate as long as you don't go reading a bunch of stuff into it and looking for boogeymen where none exist...

 

[Scarnucci]

Shooter, I think you are either quoting me out of context or I didnt make my point clear in that sentence.


Do I have any reason to believe that the folks out for a nice dinner out, both LEO and armed civilians, felt like suppressing the rights of the rest of the eatery as described in the OP?

Nope.

Perhaps I should rephrase:

Do I have any reason to believe that as described in the OP, that when VUPDBlue went out with his family for dinner, that he, or any of the rest of the armed folks who he called shepherds, planned on suppressing the rights of the rest of the eatery?

Nope.

(then to continue)

Do I think it is important that the OP considered himself the shepherd along with the rest of the LEOs, and that the unarmed civilians were but mere sheep?

You're damn right I do.

I hope my point is clearer. Dunno if it matters much at this point.

One problem is, however, that those bogey men DO exist. Maybe not in that eatery that night, but the attitude of the police being shepherds, or on their blue line, or whatever you want to call it exists, and it is separating some of them from the communities which they are supposed to be serving. Instead of being part of the citizenry, they act like they are above the rest of us and not beholden to the same rules that they enforce and we are to follow.

Am I accusing VUPDBlue of such behavior and actions? No! But a seemingly benign comment is important because there are those out there who do behave and act in such a way, and the rest of us must hold them accountable.