Town Hall Meeting: INGO and Law Enforcement

[RichardR]

"I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me and if I do wrong, set me right." - Abu Bakr.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In that case, any and all discussions should be related to Indiana and SCOTUS decisions ONLY. If that's the way that you want the board to operate, then fair is fair.

No. What this sounds to me like you're saying is that we either must allow a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything at anytime, no matter the effect on the people on the other end of the connection, no matter if it sends the site to the PD equivalent of Stormfront, no matter what the owner of the site wants OR we must have a total "police state" mentality here and tightly restrict all conversation.

This is a false choice (and incidentally, would also mean members such as yourself, who do not live in Indiana currently, would of necessity, be banned.) We are humans and we are adults, which at least in theory means we are capable of rational thought, tact, and polite, civil behavior without the Mod staff having to act like parents to a bunch of unruly children who have not yet learned how to behave in a mature manner.

NOTE: I am NOT calling members here by any names, I am making a comparison between two modes of personal interaction. In the one, you control yourself. In the other, someone else must do it for you. Neither Fenway nor any of the mod staff want the latter.

Is it that hard for you (generic you, not you, personally) to treat people with civility and good manners?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[VUPDblue]

My suggestion is that when someone posts a thread about what they feel was a positive encounter with LEOs, the first person to post (in purple or not) that it was a fishing expedition, his rights were violated etc... gets to meet the banhammer. It is not the threads borne of single incidents that constitute bashing IMHO, but rather the good threads that go south because anti-LEO loudmouths want to armchair quarterback someone else's experience and put their own negative spin on it.

 

[Rookie]

My suggestion is that when someone posts a thread about what they feel was a positive encounter with LEOs, the first person to post (in purple or not) that it was a fishing expedition, his rights were violated etc... gets to meet the banhammer. It is not the threads borne of single incidents that constitute bashing IMHO, but rather the good threads that go south because anti-LEO loudmouths want to armchair quarterback someone else's experience and put their own negative spin on it.

Sounds good, but will that apply to everyone?

 

[rockhopper46038]

Come on Denny, man up dude. Just like you are expected to clean up your local department, I am sure all of these guys take full responsibility for the behavior of other gun owners or at the very least all of their fellow INGOers.

Didn't really want to get involved, but this is a crap argument. Give me police powers, or immunity from criminal (and civil) charges and I would be HAPPY to clean up the unlawful actions of my fellow gunowners, were I to become aware of them. Unfortunately, without such powers, I'm likely to be arrested for taking such action. An LEO, however, should be EXPECTED to IMMEDIATELY take action in the face of a more than trivial violation of the law (some would say ANY violation, but let's not allow a red herring into this argument) by a fellow LEO. As you well know, operating in your capacity as a sworn officer, you are exempt from the jeopardy of prosecution that I would face in the exact same circumstances, assuming always that it is a JUST arrest you are making. I personally LIKE LEO's, but what was posted above is specious.

 

[Rayne]

once again, the only "bashing" i see here are against the bad LEO's who blatently harm people or break the law. or I see the "bashing" of failed and bad police policies that we want changed. i will "bash" these 2 things all day long. if you dont bash them too then you need to go re-read your laws. seriously, people need to get some nuts. either speak up in the threads that you dont like (not just LEO's) or STFU and stop crying to the mods over nothing.

my solution? stop making this such a big deal. the majority of your members here support whats being discussed in the politics section, and some dont have the stomach to admit whats going on regarding any political subject so they just keep pulling either the D lever or the R lever and stay out of the political forums all together anyways and dont even know theres a disagreement until it gets posted in the break room. seriously the majority of the people I see complain are the ones i never see post ANYWHERE .

And right here is the problem again. Using the definition posted above; What good does "Bashing do"? What are you doing to fix the problem besides whining about it on a forum? If you would use your time more constructively then maybe these bad LEO's and failed/bad police policies would get changed instead of beating a dead horse all day long.

What bother's me the most is the smarta** way things are written on this forum. What happened to common courtesy and respect. I don't mean you have to respect me per-say, you don't know me well enough but I don't expect you to talk to me like I'm gutter slum either.

And lastly unless you have some magic ball, you don't have a clue who the people are that are complaining, maybe no one is, maybe it's jut Fenway that's getting tired of all the trash talk on his site. And it could be that people don't post in opposition to you because of the tactics that you use behind the scene and then whine when someone calls you out on it publicly. So go ahead and neg rep me if you want...write stuff in my visitor's messages and then change it later to smiley faces so no one else can see what you said. Right now I've grown a pair and don't care anymore.

 

[jsx1043]

I finally just finished reading this thread. What I have to add is probably inconsequential, but at least I am involved. I'm going to lay it all out:

I am a LEO. A Reserve Deputy Sheriff, to be exact. I am an ILEA certified officer, and have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Indianapolis. I have been a full time LEO for the last 10 years, until last September when I was offered a job in the private sector. I remain a reserve because I believe in the power of good people doing good work and serving the people of my city/county. I have a big heart, that I sometimes wear on my sleeve. Why? Because I care about people and am truly called to help. I have held LE jobs that would send some posters into a full-on seizure (Aiport Police, School Resource Officer, Warrant Team) and honestly, am very proud of my time in those positions. (If anybody wants to discuss those, we can open up a thread later.)

I have had a chance to meet a LOT of folks from here at various meet and greets, and even some I call close friends. I think everyone would tell you, at least I hope they would, that meeting me was a pleasure, that I am truly a good person, and that I represented law enforcement well. I'll have a a cup of coffe with anyone that asks. I think a meet and greet would only end up in the same, or similar opinions of our fellow INGO LEO's. I think I can sum it best from the post I made in the "Cop Bashing?" thread from a month ago:

"I'm one of the LEO's who doesn't visit as much anymore. I still like the site, but am disappointed by the tone as of late. No, I'm not butthurt because I have done nothing wrong. Many folks have met me and know that I'm a stand-up guy and that there's nothing I wouldn't do to help any of the members here.

I toak an oath to serve and protect the people of the state of Indiana and the Constitution of both the United States and the State of Indiana. It p!$$es me off to no end when I see some of the stupid things some of my brethren do, and some of the idiotic ideas the courts and administrations place upon us, at the burden of the people we serve. You'll find that the good officers continue to do their jobs everyday, helping others, rather than be hamstrung by those idiotic policies.

What I guess I'm saying is that we, the good cops, are already here (on INGO) and on your side. We disagree with the stupid rulings and policies and fight them as much as we can within our abilities. Like the saying goes, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," we are true patriots and continue to uphold the rights of the citizens by NOT following those rulings. None of the INGO LEO's are going to come kick YOUR door in (or anybody's door for that matter,) just because some court says you can't resist us if we do so. Voicing your objections to those rulings and the continued trampling of the rights of US as citizens is the highest form of patriotism, and I join you on that fight.

We do what we can to fight for the people we serve - we're not the ones you need to take the fight to. WE need to stand up for OUR rights outside of our comfort zone (quit preaching to the choir) and take it to the lawmakers where those decisions are made.

This site, (along with other forums, clubs and fraternities,) is my playground. When the other kids come to play and b!tch about what they're serving in the cafeteria, all day every day, you don't want to come out and play anymore."


What happens to me is, I run short on time to play here. I click on the "Unread Posts" link to see what's been going on. What turns me off, is seeing so many threads, in a snapshot of the site, that I feel are directly aimed insulting LE in general, and are written to generate discontent among our group and drive a stake between us. Whether that feeling is justified as "Cop Bashing" or just a feeling of being the only guy wearing a Colts jersey walking into a bar in Chicago, it's just not a feeling of the place being very friendly, and I vote with my feet and just leave for a while. I hate to say, but that feeling is the reason why I've gone to other forums (plural,) spent more time at them, and have become a site supporter of those forums.

Right or wrong that's how I feel. This is Fenway's house, and he has the right to run it as he sees fit. I don't think there should be anything done to change the forum at all: no new subforums, no restrictions, no censorship. If I don't like, I just don't play here.

This is, after all serious business. It's the internets!

(FLAME ON! )

 

[Denny347]

Didn't really want to get involved, but this is a crap argument. Give me police powers, or immunity from criminal (and civil) charges and I would be HAPPY to clean up the unlawful actions of my fellow gunowners, were I to become aware of them. Unfortunately, without such powers, I'm likely to be arrested for taking such action. An LEO, however, should be EXPECTED to IMMEDIATELY take action in the face of a more than trivial violation of the law (some would say ANY violation, but let's not allow a red herring into this argument) by a fellow LEO. As you well know, operating in your capacity as a sworn officer, you are exempt from the jeopardy of prosecution that I would face in the exact same circumstances, assuming always that it is a JUST arrest you are making. I personally LIKE LEO's, but what was posted above is specious.

Only if I am acting within the scope of my employment and within my department's rules. Outisde of that, I can and will be prosecuted as any other person. I can tell you from my own experience that being named in a Federal Civil Rights violation suit is 100% a horrible experience even with 100% department backing because I did nothing wrong. Most of our actions anymore are based on the premise of covering our own butts from civil/criminal litigation. The thought of immunity is laughable. So is the idea that we do what ever we want and easily turn a blind eye to violations we see because we believe we are free from prosecution. I can tell you that is far from the truth. The unwaivering blue wall is not what you see on TV. Family comes first and I nor anyone I work with would risk losing this job or their freedom for SOMEONE ELSES poor choice.

 

[VUPDblue]

Sounds good, but will that apply to everyone?

Yep, everyone.

 

[RichardR]

My suggestion is that when someone posts a thread about what they feel was a positive encounter with LEOs, the first person to post (in purple or not) that it was a fishing expedition, his rights were violated etc... gets to meet the banhammer. It is not the threads borne of single incidents that constitute bashing IMHO, but rather the good threads that go south because anti-LEO loudmouths want to armchair quarterback someone else's experience and put their own negative spin on it.

But what if it really was a fishing expedition? or some other unlawful abuse of authority, say like an officer taking possession of someones firearm even after being shown a valid LTCH?

Is it really being "a loud mouthed anti-LEO" to point that stuff out to folks who might not have known better?

 

[KG1]

I say if it's such a contentious issue that is destroying Ingo then lets quit beating around the bush and ban any mention of -1 LE encounters and the whole political subforum and get it over with and go back to discussing "poo steaks" and "deep fried Kool aid balls"

 

[Ogre]

My suggestion is that when someone posts a thread about what they feel was a positive encounter with LEOs, the first person to post (in purple or not) that it was a fishing expedition, his rights were violated etc... gets to meet the banhammer. It is not the threads borne of single incidents that constitute bashing IMHO, but rather the good threads that go south because anti-LEO loudmouths want to armchair quarterback someone else's experience and put their own negative spin on it.

I have seen those who might be considered "cop bashers" do this, but I have also seen LEO's make similar snide posts to throw it in said "cop bashers" faces... I think if there truly is a problem here (which I don't think there is, especially not worthy of all this hub bub) then there is plenty of characters on all sides that can be accused of insitigating.
I'm with some of the other members on the issue. While I understand this is a private site, and it's rules are to the discretion of the owner, I think any discussion should be allowed. Alot of members need to learn to ignore, or grow thicker skin. I have been pissed off by statements made to me on this board, but I never let it get to me to be "butt hurt", and it has never made me think I would be better served not spending time on this board. In fact, the opposite is true, when the rules increasingly become more restrictive around here, I find myself going elsewhere.

 

[E5RANGER375]

My suggestion is that when someone posts a thread about what they feel was a positive encounter with LEOs, the first person to post (in purple or not) that it was a fishing expedition, his rights were violated etc... gets to meet the banhammer. It is not the threads borne of single incidents that constitute bashing IMHO, but rather the good threads that go south because anti-LEO loudmouths want to armchair quarterback someone else's experience and put their own negative spin on it.

i disagree with this. In my opinion and viewpoint from what I've seen here you would banhammer anyone who says anything bad about any cop anyways if it were up to you.
if anything is done I like Ques idea better. and actually then what your saying could actually fit in there.

if people wanna be sheep when they are stopped and invite cops to search them, run their gun, tear apart their car, because they dont know or care about their rights then fine. I think a lot of people misunderstand those of us who are just trying to inform people they have rights that prevent them from being trampled.

 

[88GT]

1. Limiting the discussion to Indiana incidents is a red herring. Most of what is considered "anti" LE/LEO threads are examples of egregious abuses of power by LEO and disgusting displays of liberty-stomping. Last time I checked, Indiana gunowners were not immune to those things. And since when was freedom limited by state lines?

2. Here's why we have to define the problem if you honestly want a solution:

Which of the following are considered "bashing?"

A. SWAT team executes a no-knock and operates on a "shoot first, ask questions" later basis. When the smoke clears, 3 innocent people are dead. In pointing out that the "LE retains full authority in all circumstances" during such operations" has the effect of rendering individual liberties moot, member states that such behavior is unacceptable and all LE departments and agents who support this kind of behavior and mentality are enemies of the people.

B. Driver gets pulled over for a traffic violation (legitimately) and in the course of the conversation reveals to LEO that he is armed. LEO requests his EDC. Driver refuses as the order is unlawful, and LEO removes driver from car, places him in cuffs, and proceeds to toss the car. Memver states that such behavior is unacceptable and all LE departments and agents who support this kind of behavior and mentality are enemies of the people.

C. After being stopped for a traffic violation and getting snarky with the LEO, a member posts his experience on INGO, and lambasts the LEO for his unprofessional behavior. (Assume all statements to be true.)

D. After being stopped for a traffic violation and remaining civil and polite, a member posts his experience on INGO lambasting the LEO for his unprofessional behavior. (Assume all statements to be true.)

E. After being stopped for a traffic violation and getting snarky with the LEO, a member posts his experience on INGO lambasting the LEO for his unprofessional behavior, and then extends all the epithets to all other members of LEO.


There are members here that would consider all five examples to be bashing. IMO, only the latter qualifies. C and D are borderline, but if the rant was kept to the specifics of that single encounter, I would hesitate to call it bashing. As I have personally posted an encounter that comes closest to C/D in circumstances, and seeing that the LEOs were just as guilty as non-LEOs in making snide remarks and sarcastic implications, I find it insulting to be told that non-LEOs are the root of the problem.

I fail to see how pointing out of the ever-increasing powers of the police are eroding and eliminating our rights is bashing. But if it is, then so be it. I will join Ranger is continuing to do it until it is verboten on this site or I get perma-banned.

My liberties don't play second fiddle to anybody's hurt feelings. And I will do whatever is necessary, say whatever is necessary to protect those liberties. If part of that is making people aware of direction LE is going, then that's what I'll do. THe first step to solving a problem is identifying it and defining its scope and severity.

The irony is that I understand on some level how the LEOs feel. There is frequent enough and vitriolic enough posts "bashing" females that I can start to feel uncomfortable at times, even though I know I'm not anything like the ones that are initiating the backlash, and even though almost no one makes any effort whatsoever to distinguish between the problem females and the others. Inevitably, a thread about female behavior WILL result in somebody making a comment that ALL women are trouble/crazy/stupid/heartless/conniving/manipulative/money-grubbing/insert other derogatory adjective of choice *****es.

Incidentally, some one made the same blanket statement about Realtors once too. But at that one I actually laughed and figured he got what he deserved for not choosing better. But I digress.

You want a double standard? Try this one on for size. If I complained about those posts, I'd be told in no uncertain terms that this was a site of mostly men and if I didn't like how things were done/said, I was free to find a site that better suited my girly parts.

I'm finding it hard to have much sympathy for grown men who can't distinguish condemnation of LE policies as they relate to the liberties of the people from cop-hater threads that simply villify all cops. LE may be used interchangably with LEO, but it takes a special kind of self-deceit not to recognize the real message and to twist it into something that victimizes a non-victim.

I'm going to end it now. Everything else I've tried to write is less constructive.

 

[cowgirl.sdm]

I feel that we should all be adults and realize that there are good people and bad people. We should not generalize because they are not all bad or all good. If we find someone generalizing then maybe they should not be allowed to make the rest of us look bad. Of course I love food so I am up for a meet and greet with food (Bacon). LOL!

 

[Kick]

In that case, any and all discussions should be related to Indiana and SCOTUS decisions ONLY. If that's the way that you want the board to operate, then fair is fair.

Status update threads, deep fried Koop aid balls, Ryan Dunn killing himself in a fiery crash, and the majority of other posts on INGO have nothing to do with Indiana or gun ownership but this same complaint is never brought up there. This argument is nothing more than asking for the ban of Leo talk all together. If that's what you want, just say it. Otherwise, it's just disinguine.

+1 Patriot. Tried to point this out earlier and even attempted to give examples of why some topics outside the state may be of some use to others to officer kick but the reply I got then was that he wanted to be selective in applying this to only certain topics that he did'nt approve of.

Not to mention the infamous "poop steak" thread which by the way if I recall happened in japan. Seems to me that a dissusion about bad LEO's or bad LE policies in any part of the country would be more pertinent to Indiana Gun owners than that "crap" (pun intended)

Ok, I read all of the above posts and was going to attempt to reply to them individually. However, I also read the following post from Bill and feel that I could not reply any better.

No. What this sounds to me like you're saying is that we either must allow a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything at anytime, no matter the effect on the people on the other end of the connection, no matter if it sends the site to the PD equivalent of Stormfront, no matter what the owner of the site wants OR we must have a total "police state" mentality here and tightly restrict all conversation.

This is a false choice (and incidentally, would also mean members such as yourself, who do not live in Indiana currently, would of necessity, be banned.) We are humans and we are adults, which at least in theory means we are capable of rational thought, tact, and polite, civil behavior without the Mod staff having to act like parents to a bunch of unruly children who have not yet learned how to behave in a mature manner.

NOTE: I am NOT calling members here by any names, I am making a comparison between two modes of personal interaction. In the one, you control yourself. In the other, someone else must do it for you. Neither Fenway nor any of the mod staff want the latter.

Is it that hard for you (generic you, not you, personally) to treat people with civility and good manners?

Blessings,
Bill

As for the section that I highlighted in bold, it is not a section that I do not approve of. It is a topic that is causing issues on Fenway's site. Fenway started a thread asking for suggestions. I am attempting to be part of the solution.

 

[KG1]

+1 88GT. Not that I could add anything to your post I can think of another example that was posted about a member who was OC'ng in a grocery store and was observed by a LEO on security then followed outside in the parking lot on the way to his vehicle, closely enough by the LEO that it made him feel uncomfortable and he felt it was being done to try and intimidate and he was thinking about fililing a complaint. I remember reading that post and I recall at the time he was told that he was being overly sensitive or paranoid and was put down for posting a thread like that and it was almost to the point of ridicule and being portrayed as cop bashing. My point is the same that the definition needs to be defined because I have seen the "cop bashing" blanket being tossed around aswell to try and stiffle anyone who may have an ligitimate reason for posting their LEO encounter..

 

[Kick]

Are you really trying to tell me that you don't know what cop bashing is? It's the same thing as "gun nut" bashing, racial bashing, bashing based on someone's sexual orientation.

I highly doubt that your parents had to tell you not to "bash" people based on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. However, now you need a definition of bashing to avoid bashing based on someone's employment status. Really?

 

[HighStrung]

As for possible solutions to the bashing issues, is it possible to ban someone from a specific topic or forum section only. There are plenty of people here who can play nice on a variety of topics, and are quite helpful in many ways, yet they just cant seem to play nice in a specific arena. Could, at the mod's discression, someone not be banned from the entire site but be banned from the "LEO's" section based on their inability to play nice? Instead of taking the ban all LEO discussion, and instead of having a free for all which leads to butt hurt, how bout closing those sections only to those specific individuals causing the problems? First, is this at all possible? Second, is it even a good idea to limit peoples ability to read/post on specific topics?

 

[Dirtebiker]

What do you mean? I'm on the lowest rung of the department...I'm just a lowly beat cop. In 14yrs, I have not been a part nor have I witnessed "bad cop" behavior. So what house can I clean up? I work with good people and we do good things out here. So can I and my co workers be excluded from this pig pile?

Wow, 14 years, and never witnessed "bad cop"behavior? If that is true, thats great!!! Sounds hard to believe though. What size department do you work for? Btw.... Thanks for your service!