So what should our Police Think

[AldoLeopold]

I took a history of police for my first degree - and my impression was that many police officers, of many nations, would prefer that the population that they protect and serve in fact not be armed.

So, perhaps our law enforcement members might enter into the discussion? What say you? Should we ban all firearms if it were possible?

[Cleita]

1. I had cops tell me the same thing.

They said their jobs would be much easier if they could arrest a criminal for carrying a weapon. Instead they have to wait until they shoot somebody to arrest them.

[AldoLeopold]

4. Who are you that speaks such reason on these forums?

Although I suppose reason often comes from experience - which you have brought here. Thank you. I will repost this same question if we do not obtain more attention.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. They can arrest a criminal illegally carrying a weapon and should

Oddly enough AGs refuse to prosecute 90+% of the Brady Bill cases referred to them.

[Cleita]

6. So you admit they have a dilemma, hence the need for the gun to be used in

a crime, not just carried.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. No dilemma. Carrying alone is a prima facie crime under those circumstances

If there criminal has no felonies, is over 21 but has no CCW it is a crime
If the criminal has a felony record, mere possession is a crime anywhere
If the criminal is less than 21 regardless of record it is a crime anywhere

In some states. like CA, certain misdemeanor also prohibit firearms possession

To say that cops cannot arrest a criminal for just carrying is either miscommunication or a bad lie.

[Cleita]

8. I was told this by LA's finest and I don't think they are lying.

Maybe my words aren't exact and I was paraphrasing but their meaning was very clear. Their jobs would be much easier if they could arrest and let's say make an arrest stick on a perp before a crime was committed by them just carrying a weapon they had no permit for or reason to by carrying. The way things are, they can't do anything about gang members until they commit a crime and then some one is either injured or dead by that time. Then they can make an arrest that the DA will press charges on.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Then I have to believe you misunderstood

If a cop sees a gun, everybody needs to get prostrate on the ground real fast. They don't just let it go.

LAPD has had some issues. There are have been suits over harassment, racially motivated searches and the like against area agencies. If those court orders are still in force, they could be somewhat limiting what the cops can do but no court order would block a lawful arrest for carrying or possessing a weapon illegally.

That the DA does not have the bandwidth to prosecute them does not surprise me. However, if the cops seize an illegal gun, they do not have to return it, and that is one less armed thug.

[AldoLeopold]

11. I was kinda just making a simple point

That I would think police themselves would be safer if we eventually managed to get the guns. And it would make their jobs easier.

It seems to me if we claim to revere police in our society, etc., we should try helping them out by passing laws that make their job easier.

[PDJane]

2. Unless you have a hunting and fishing license, yes.

I would get rid of the damn things entirely. We don't need an arsenal for day to day living.

[AldoLeopold]

3. Because we pay and honor police to protect us

So this would strengthen police and their unions - and the value of public servants entirely I suspect. Which is good, I should think. I wonder why we are not including police opinions in this debate more.

They are the ones on the front lines every day facing these dangers.

[freshwest]

10. It sounds like the sheep dog, the sheep and the wolf analogy I've heard from LEOs.

In order for the herd (oh, I know the insults that will breed) to live in peace and prosperity, they say, the sheep dog is there to do the things the public doesn't want or need to learn.

The children at Sandy Hook didn't need to learn to fire a gun or duck and cover for the armed wolves who are now running loose among the flock legally. They needed to develop into whoever or whatever they were going to be.

Which could have been doctors, teachers, nurses, crafts people or whatever else the planet needs. That's a civil society with a chance for mobility and freedom to be oneself instead of a consumer of the culture of death.

The wolves have gathered and formed a group to bring down the sheep dogs, by denying funding and stealing the commons the sheep needed to travel in their journey of life. It leaves the wolves free to threaten everyone whenever they feel like it and then make them go and hide and release the commons to their masters. Like the Koches.

That's as simple an analogy as I can make to describe what is happening emotionally and even materially in this nation. At the same time the wolves howl about a police state, they are escalating the level of force in this country as they do their masters' bidding and arm themselves to kill off the sheep dogs.

They don't get what they're working for, maybe none of us do. That line of thinking is offensive on an ego level, but there is an old Italian saying:

When the game is over, the king and the pawn go into the same box.

Not that well expressed of a rant, but anyway.