Free Markets, Free People

Insufficiently Servile

I got a taste of what modern policing has become today—which is to say, an absolute unwillingness to allow anything but complete, unquestioning obedience. Officer Friendly has long since retired, apparently.

For the past fifteen years, I have worked every day on the same very small military installation as a contractor. This morning, as I was approaching the main gate, when I started off after the stoplight, I didn’t shift upshift. So, the Goat was just wailing that sweet V8 growl as I approached the gate. About fifty yards from the gate, I slowed down, rolled down my window, and had my ID outside the car as I approached. Usually, there are civilian DoD police at the gate, but this morning, it was manned by a reservist, a 2nd Class Master at Arms—the Navy’s equivalent to Military Police. We had a brief conversation that went, as nearly as I can remember it like this:

PO2: (Snippy) Are you running late this morning?

Me: No.

(At this point, I could instantly see that my answer displeased him.)

PO2: (Scowling) You need to keep your speed down.

Me: I always observe the speed limits when I’m on the installation.

PO2: (Waving me through) You need to keep your speed down off-base, too.

Me: (Starting to drive away) What happens off-base isn’t your jurisdiction.

I got to my office, turned on my computer, and went into the break area to warm up a couple of delicious whole-wheat Eggos. While I was standing in the kitchen, a uniformed DoD police officer walked in and asked me if I owned the Red GTO. When I said I did, he then asked for my driver’s license. I asked, since I wasn’t operating a motor vehicle, if I was required to show it to him. (In CA, you are not required to do so when not operating a vehicle, nor are you required to show an ID otherwise. It’s different on military bases, of course, in that you are required to show an ID).

When I gave it to him, he then began to tell me how bad my attitude was, and how I should be more respectful of the police, what with them having such a hard job and all. I said that, when it came to respect, maybe the gate guard should’ve been a little less snippy. He said they didn’t need me making smart remarks about their jurisdiction, because they have a close relationship with civilian law enforcement, and he himself, had worked for Atlanta PD for fifteen years. I denied driving at an excessive speed when I approached the gate, said that my comment about jurisdiction was completely valid and that did not have the authority to issue traffic citations off-base, and that if they felt they needed to call CHP to give me a citation, they should do so. Otherwise, he should present me with a citation or arrest me for a military-related offense. Failing that, I was uninterested in further conversation. He seemed a bit upset when he left.

About twenty minutes later, two more DoD policemen came into my office. One of them was the major who serves as the installation’s police chief. They asked to talk to me outside. I told them that, since it appeared that I was the target of some sort of investigation I would refuse to answer any questions without consulting legal council. They asked me to step outside the building and I complied. The major then asked me where I was getting my legal knowledge from, and I replied that I had been an active-duty military policeman for 10 years. They asked for my license, registration and insurance card, and workcenter supervisors. While one officer began to write down my information, the major then told me that as a military policeman I should have a better attitude and be more cooperative. He  then presented a  hypothetical situation about approaching the gate at a high rate of speed. I said, "Hypothetically, I would categorically deny any such allegations". He began to ask me more questions, and I stopped him, saying:

Me: Don’t I have the right to remain silent?

Major: Well, if you are a former MP you should know that Miranda only applies to custodial interviews, not voluntary ones."

Me: So, is this a voluntary interview?

Major: Yes.

Me: So, I’m free to go?

(The major hesitated at this point, probably because both he and I knew what the only correct answer was.)

Major: Yes, you’re free to go.

Me: Then, I think we’re done here.

I retrieved my documentation from the other officer, put it my car, and walked back into the building.

Another twenty minutes passed when two different officers showed up at my office and asked me to come outside. When I did, they presented me with a base traffic ticket for not having my car registered on base. Quite honestly, I didn’t know I was required to, since the Navy no longer issues vehicle decals. We were told that registration was no longer necessary, but apparently the registration regulation is still on the books. The ticket had already been written before the officers approached me. One of them—the officer who had been sent over to speak with me the first time—said, "By direction of the base police chief, I am issuing you a citation for failure to register your vehicle within ten days. You can call the base traffic office if you have any questions." I said, "Wait a second, I haven’t even had my plates for ten days. I just bought the car." He said, "Your registration is dated more than 10 days ago. That’s the date we go by." Then they left.

So, I went to Pass & ID register my car—as well as my motorcycle, which has never been registered either—and they tore up my ticket. Then when I got back to my office, I called to the regional headquarters, and spoke directly with the GS-15 who runs all the local Navy police operations. I explained that I had a brief, snippy conversation with the gate guard, and since then, had been pulled out of my workcenter three separate times by five DoD police officers, and that I felt it was a little excessive, especially considering the chief of police himself had been one of the officers. He said he would take care of it, which, I hope, means he will tell the local police to turn it down from 11.

So, that was my contact with the DoD police today. At every confrontation, they clearly expected me to respond with the appropriate degree of subservience, and were baffled and angered that I refused to do so. So, they couldn’t let it go. They just kept coming back to my office, as if repeated confrontations would make me more, rather than less, servile. And all this for something that wasn’t any sort of criminal offense.

It says a lot—none of it good—that the police seem to have the expectation of unquestioning obedience. It also says a lot that they seem used to getting it, which is our fault, not theirs.


Dale’s social media profiles:
Twitter | Facebook | Google+

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

79 Responses to Insufficiently Servile

  • He was wrong about your right to remain silent. You ALWAYS have a right to remain silent, even during a “voluntary” conversation. He just doesn’t have an obligation to specifically inform you about that right if unless it is a “custodial interview.”

  • You were lucky they didn’t shoot you.
     
    I once had a Houston PD detective come to my door fairly late in the evening.  He was there to serve a warrant on a ticket from another town that I thought was completely settled.  But he did have a warrant.  I was in my bathrobe, so I needed to get dressed.  As always, I was all “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” with the detective, and never acted cute.
     
    Shortly after getting dressed, two uniformed officers showed up…one a sergeant.  I was handcuffed and put in the detective’s car.  On the way to the substation, he confided in me that he was at the point of shooting me in my apartment.  Why?  I have no earthly clue, since I was polite, compliant, and careful to show him no threat.
     
    On arrival at the substation, and after a short wait, he came out and released me.  Seems after calling the town that issued the warrant, they had not bothered to call him back.  “Piss on them”, he declared, as he let me go.
     
    I still wonder what the hell I did that had him spooked.

    • The police are not your friends.  They have not been your friends for quite a while now.
      Sure, there are exceptions, but if your default position is that the police are not your friends, you will be right the vast majority of the time.
      Cops are trained these days to require instant and unquestioning obedience, and to regard anything otherwise as a threat.

    • I still wonder what the hell I did that had him spooked.

      Paranoid schizophrenia.
      You didn’t think the city wanted GOOD people for their hired thugs, did you?

    • I still wonder what the hell I did that had him spooked.

      >>>> Maybe it was your “kill all pigs” t-shirt and “F**k the Police” playing on your iTunes in the background ;)

  • Screw calling the Chain o’ command over this.  I would have looked up the procedure to file an Internal Affairs complaint over this one.  At a minimum, it is going to tie everybody involved up and force them to respond, thus creating more work for them.  I would go Ender Wiggin and would make sure by the time you were done, that they never wanted to cross your path or darken your door again. 

    Also, most cell phones will act as a pocket recorder.

    • I would go Ender Wiggin

      >>> Um….that means that you’d basically kill the guy. A bit extreme.

      As to your phone acting as a recorder…..not good enough if the phone is confiscated or “accidentally” stomped on 10-15 times.  There’s a great app (don’t remember the name, sorry) that not only records but automatically uploads the video to your youtube as well so even if the phone is swiped or broken you have a record.

      • By ‘Ender Wiggin’ I mean make the procedure sufficiently unpleasant that they would desire no further repeats, not to literally kill someone but I though that implied meaning was obvious.

        • It’s gotten pretty bad when the default assumption someone makes about going Ender Wiggin on somebody is to assume that killing is the desired result. OTOH, that was the result that Ender got each time he remonstrated with someone who was annoying him.

  • To Protect and Serve (the politicians).

  • The real charge is “contempt of cop”, an unwritten law which carries a fine up to all of your possessions (civil forfeiture), jail time, humiliation, torture, and even the death penalty, if you catch one on a bad day.  In lieu of being charged with “contempt of cop”, you’ll be formally charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, terroristic threats, assault on a police officer, and even attempted murder.  Generally, the severity of the formal charge increases with the severity and inappropriateness of the officer’s own conduct in abusing you. Awards, commendations, and promotions are frequently used by supervisors to lay the groundwork for any potential civil lawsuit, so that it becomes your word against that of a “highly decorated” officer.
    When you’ve got a fat lip, a busted cell phone, a night in jail, and impound fees on your vehicle, and then they drop the charges, you feel lucky because they’ve demonstrated you could have been punished far worse.

  • I can share a story – pales in comparison to this but still.
     
    When I was a teen, I used to work in a Carvel.  One day on my way to work the train had no AC, so my friend and I decided to stand between the cars so we could at least get a breeze. This cop comes up to us and reads us the riot act and gives us each a ticket for “unsafe riding” whatever that was.
    Kicker – guy and his partner stopped into my store. They were used to the owner comping them they were halfway out the door before they realized I was telling them how much it was. The guy didn’t recognize me from Adam but the look on his face as he reached into his pocket to pay was priceless to me!

  • I am of mixed minds on these things sometimes.  There is no doubt that the bozo at the gate and the subsequent reaction from the other LEO’s was so far over the top that it results in the type of scorn they receive.
     
    At the same time, I have seen cops pull over people because of something like a gas tank door being open and before the cop could say a word, get blasted by they driver.  “Don’t you have anything better to do?”  “Don’t you know I pay your salary?”  The driver didn’t even know why the cop was stopping him.  The cop wasn’t going to ask for ID or anything.  He was doing what he would want someone to do for him if he left his little door open – tell them.  And for that, he got an earful.
     
    It is hard to know where the circle began.  Was it the cops with the “you must obey!” attitude or citizens with the “you’re not the boss of me!” attitude that started this mess.
     
    Franks best point is that Officer Friendly is dead.
     
    Who killed him is a matter of conjecture and I suspect the answer is that both law enforcement and citizens had something to do with his murder.
     
     

    • The citizen with the “You are not the boss of me” attitude is correct and in the right.  The cop is wrong with his “You must obey”.  If the government employee doesn’t like it, he is more than welcome to find honest employment.

      • The citizen is not always right in saying something like that.  To believe that is to show an ignorance of the law.
         
        There has to be a pull back from these “nuclear / confrontational incidents.”
         
        Not all cops are bad.  Not all citizens are shining examples of wonderful people.  A little understanding from both sides could go a long way.
         
        In Franks’ case, the cops were way over the top and should be disciplined – if not fired.
         

        • There has to be a pull back from these ‘nuclear / confrontational incidents.’

          I don’t think the people buying/obtaining armored personnel carriers, marching around in military-style gear with high and tight hair cuts, etc. are of any mind to pull back.  That you and they apparently imagine civilians threatening them sufficiently to justify their gestapo tendencies is a troubling sign that the police side isn’t dealing with reality.
          This will get worse until those at the police academies and other training facilities, supervisors, civilian oversight, judges, DAs, and all the scum-bag “thin blue line” thugs who threaten actual honest officers stop what they are doing, get some perspective, and hold the “bad apples” accountable.

          • That you and they apparently imagine civilians threatening them sufficiently to justify their gestapo tendencies is a troubling sign that the police side isn’t dealing with reality.

            A little over a year ago a Deputy Sheriff in my county pulled over a car for speeding on what is known around here as “the highway of death” because of the large number of people killed on.
             
            The 35 year veteran of the force, mother, grandmother, den mother and team mother walked up to the car to get ID from the driver.
             
            A moment later, she was dead – shot by the two occupants of the vehicle who were drug addicts.  What the deputy did not know was that the addicts had just broken into a motel and stolen a bunch of stuff that was in the car.  They apparently thought she was stopping them for the theft.
             
            They shot her.  Left her body on the highway and tried to drive away but were caught.
             
            In her career, the Deputy Sheriff never had a complaint lodged against her by a citizen.  Not a one.  Two of her children were patrol officers on the force.  Another was a decorated dispatcher for another division.  She was everything you want from an officer and there she was lying in her own pool of blood.
             
            Over the next few months, complaints against cops for being overly aggressive on traffic stops and the like rose.  I suspect to some people like you, you would condemn the officers for being more aggressive in making sure they were going to go home alive at the end of their shift.  For some of the rest of us, it is understandable.
             
            People want cops to act as human beings and when they do, people get upset.
             
            Bad cops make the news and get on YouTube.  It reinforces the idea that all cops are bad.
             
            Reality is different but in a world where the cost of making a mistake is not going home to a family and loved ones, I don’t fault the cops for responding to threats.
             
            There are a lot of bad cops and a lot of good cops.  Cops and citizens need to work to understand what each other is trying to accomplish with their lives.  That is what I meant by “pulling back” from confrontations.
             
            I don’t know where this all started.  Did the cops start it?  Are they just reacting to the threats?  Did citizens start it?  Or are they reacting to what they perceive as a push against them?
             
            In Franks’ case, the cops were horrible and need to be disciplined if not fired.  I don’t have any problem with that at all.  But to paint all cops with a broad brush as you and others in this thread have done is wrong.
             
             

          • Your anecdote about the cop who was murdered is a non sequitur. The job of being a cop is getting safer, not more dangerous.
            I could easily list a few dozen examples of innocent civilians being killed by law enforcement. Wrong address, frame up by a CI looking to avoid jail, etc..
            Each one of those people has a story. They have families. I could describe in great detail all the good things they did, all the people for whom the loss was a tragedy, and the grisly details of how they were wrongfully killed, sometimes murdered.
            I can list thousands of cases in which innocent people are abused, dispossessed, subjected to false arrest, etc.. A quick search of YouTube will get you plenty of examples, caught on tape. Read Radley Balko, Carlos Miller, Popehat, or any number of similar columns, weblogs, etc..
            In nearly every case, the officers are cleared of any wrongdoing and keep their jobs. If they are taken off the streets, it is often for a paid vacation. In some cases, they are cynically awarded commendations and promotions as a preemptive move to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. After all, it’s easier to hold up a “highly decorated” officer as a paragon of virtue and a victim of a witch hunt. Once in awhile, a cop is fired, and even more rarely, charged with a crime. Cops who testify against others are subjected to abuse, threats, firing, and even murder.
            In the most flagrant cases, people in the community may react angrily. But most often, it just creates a deep-seated distrust and fear among the usually poor, usually minority inhabitants of the particular jurisdiction.
            What needs to happen is for everyone in law enforcement, from the beat cop to the judge, as well as the politicians and bureaucrats who are involved in passing the laws and setting policy to take seriously each and every incident in which an innocent person is harmed, or cases in which a non-violent offender is subjected to unnecessary violence. Instead of covering for one another, giving excuses about “bad apples” and putting the onus on civilians to be more obsequious to make the cops feel safer, police need to be held to a higher standard than civilians, due to their unique legal powers. They need to be fired and prosecuted every time they cross the line. And, after every instance in which a good person is harmed, or a petty offender is abused, they need to review their policies, oversight, training, etc. to try to make it less likely that such things happen again.
            Unfortunately, what happens now is that the “thin blue line” and crazy policies mean that such events become more frequent, not less. You give someone great power over others and then demonstrate that their fellow cops who abuse that power get away with it, and you just open the door for the worst elements.

            Over the next few months, complaints against cops for being overly aggressive on traffic stops and the like rose. I suspect to some people like you, you would condemn the officers for being more aggressive in making sure they were going to go home alive at the end of their shift. For some of the rest of us, it is understandable.

            Strawman on top of strawman. This isn’t about an officer taking proper precautions at a traffic stop to avoid being ambused. This is about police abusing innocent people under the color of law. It is about a system in which the “bad apples” get away with it in nearly every case.
            You talk about cops wanting to go home alive, but what about all the civilians who want to stay alive, too? I’m sure Jose Guerena, Sal Culosi, Edward Reed, Doug Zerby, Kathryn Johnston, et al. would have liked to stay alive, too. Why is it that police officers’ lives are of more value than these people?
            If you’re going to sign up to protect others, you should be honorable enough to accept that your life will be in greater danger than those of the people you are supposed to be protecting. Increasing your safety by 0.001% at the expense of do harm to innocents, humiliating them, etc., is dishonorable.

            People want cops to act as human beings and when they do, people get upset.

            I want cops to behave professionally. If you can’t control your emotions and not fly off the handle because you’re afraid or having a bad day, then be an accountant or a pizza delivery guy. Don’t be a cop.
            Again, cops should be professional, honoarable, law-abiding. They should be held to a higher standard, punished more for violating the law.

            Bad cops make the news and get on YouTube. It reinforces the idea that all cops are bad.

            No. You’ve got the ones who break the law. You have the fellow cops who form the “thin blue line” and cover for the law-breakers. You have the thugs who threaten any cops who violate Omertà, the most effective “stop snitchin'” campaign around. You have the supervisors who look the other way. Then there are the judges who give the testimony of cops special weight by default, giving them a big advantage in court. Finally, you have the good cops who manage to avoid being fired, punished, beaten, or murdered by being lucky enough not to witness wrongdoing by a fellow cop.

          • Elliot,
             
            Thank you for missing the point of what I was saying.
             
            It is clear to me that you are so entrenched in your position that all cops are evil that rational discussion would be a waste of time.
             
            However, I will restate that there is a pushback going both ways from the police to citizens and citizens to police.  I believe it would be better for all involved to look at the world from the other person’s point of view once in awhile but such a solution would involve people looking at their own faults rather than casting blame on the other group all the time.
             
            Finally, the cops in this incident were wrong.  Flat out wrong.
             
            It is a shame that you can’t say that the thugs that shot the Brevard County Deputy were wrong as well.
             
            Your inability to do that is telling.
             
            Feel free to have the last word.

          • It is clear to me that you are so entrenched in your position that all cops are evil that rational discussion would be a waste of time.

            The word “evil” is yours, not mine. One of the finest people I’ve known in my life was in law enforcement. He behaved professionally and disliked cops who weren’t.

            However, I will restate that there is a pushback going both ways from the police to citizens and citizens to police. I believe it would be better for all involved to look at the world from the other person’s point of view once in awhile but such a solution would involve people looking at their own faults rather than casting blame on the other group all the time.

            Professionals need to behave like professionals, regardless of whether they perceive “pushback”. Civilians are not trained to deal with cops. You are attempting to impose a false equivalencey on the relationship.
            The real problem is that cops deal with plenty of scumbags, the dregs of society. This is not a representative sample. Many grow to dislike people in general, because of this, and adopt an us-vs-them mentality. However, if you’re a good person who does something which is wrongly perceived as criminal, hostile, disrespectful, etc., you risk being the target of a reaction which is not simply towards you, but towards all the rotten “perps” who pissed off that cop, all of the civilians who gave them dirty looks or called them names when their cousin or neighbor were arrested.
            If a black man robs you, does that give you license to then treat all black men as though they had harmed you? To “push back” at any random person in the way you’d “push back” at the mugger?

            It is a shame that you can’t say that the thugs that shot the Brevard County Deputy were wrong as well.

            You’re being very dishonest. I categorically denounce each and every person who shoots another person without just cause and would be happy to see all of them captured and held accountable. I don’t make any distinctions between the profession, class, popularity, etc. of the victim–so long as the victim wasn’t a thug himself.
            I dislike the attitude that “some animals are more equal than other animals”, what with the massive, extravagant (taxpayer funded) funerals of every single person of a special class, regardless of whether that person was a decent, honorable person in life. That goes for politicians, as well. The media conveniently forgets that Mandella was a communist terrorist, that Ted Kennedy killed a girl, that a given police officer might have been getting away with corruption and abuse of power until he happened to be murdered on the job. I don’t mean the person you named, just the statistically likelihood that such a thing is inevitable when huge ceremonies are the default.

    • “Who killed him is a matter of conjecture and I suspect the answer is that both law enforcement and citizens had something to do with his murder.”

      Bullsh1t.  Moral equivalence, blame the victim, cop sucking.
      That’s like saying that the reason innocent black people were lynched was not because of malevolent racism, but because a few black men actually did do harm to white people (rape, assault, theft), thus all acts of violence against any blacks were the fault of those handful of black criminals.

  • [quote]At the same time, I have seen cops pull over people because of something like a gas tank door being open [/quote]

    That is because that violation is of such a ‘de minimus’ nature that it OBVIOUSLY would constitute a fishing expedition.

  • I forgot to add, and also, you were dealing with Marines. They do a handful of things better than anybody on earth. They literally cannot grasp any other thing and don’t do them at all well. They treat everyone who is not a marine as an E1. That’s always their default position. That’s from almost 30 years experience working alongside them.

  • A neighbor friend’s daughter, who is a junior EMT, saw a cop sitting in a car on a recent cold day.
    She thought as an act of kindness to get the cop a cup of coffee.  His reply to this offer of generosity .. “what are your trying to do .. poison me ?!?”

    • I guess you wake up every morning hoping that al Qaeda and similar crazies are smart enough to be their targeting a bit better.

      • I think you dropped a few words.  I’m not sure to whom you refer in the phrase, “…you wake up every morning….”  Thales? The Popehat author?
        Perhaps you buy that:
        1. AQ and other terrorist groups are intelligent and sophisticated enough to carry out successful attacks orders of magnitude greater than 9/11, such that the aftermath would actually threaten government control, and
        2. US law enforcement tactics are effective at detecting and averting AQ attacks.
        I think #1 is absurd beyond belief and #2 is almost as nonsensical.

        • Why that’s why we’re issuing MRAPS to Andy and Barney donchaknow….
           
          because you can just never tell when the one MRAP in the town of North Podunkia is going to be out clearing the roads from the Chevron to the Whataburger and run into a QUDS IED.
           
           
          If someone in authority REALLY thinks that’s going to happen, they need to study the meaning of “the best defense is a good offense”.
          You can’t ‘defend’ everything, and pretending you can is a recipe for failure.

  • The police have always had an “us against the world” mentality.  As I’ve gotten older, I’m more leary of them.  Basically, don’t talk to the police.  They certainly are not your friend.

  • DoD police are rejects from the WannnaBeCops ranks.
    If you think our metro police are bad, these folks are the escapees from the Funny Farm.
    In the 70s, cops stopped being Peace Officers and became Law ENFORCEMENT. You can about guess what and why they became what they are.

    • Hey I resent that remark! I work for a contractor that provides secuity for the Coast Guard. I wasn’t a cop in my 21 years in the Air Force, I never wanted to BE a cop. I was offered a job as airfield security because I had a reputation as a level headed and responsible individual (and I had just been laid off when they needed to fill a suddenly open security position). I try to emulate Andy Griffith NOT Barney Fife. Most of the gung-ho types I know are active duty because they are constantly reminded that every traffic stop might be their last.

  • Cops refuse to police their own ranks and turn a blind eye to the criminal acts committed by their peers. The cops that do speak out and blow the whistle get fired.
    Hence, there is no such thing as a good cop.

    • That is WAY too broad.  LEOs are just like the rest of humanity.

      • Yes, they are. And humanity has always needed monitors when in positions of power. Those controls are NOT in place and/or not taken seriously. This is the best indication that the US has become a virtual police state. Not as bad as some, but the US, particularly the IRS, could give the STASI some lessons.

        • Please, sharps…a LITTLE historical context!
           
          The U.S. has been MUCH worse at various times.
           
          And LEOs on the street are NOT the IRS.  A LONG way from that, in fact.
           
          I like the idea of police having to wear video recording devices.  I see no downside to that whatsoever.

          • I’d offer we might be better off if they had to wear ones they can’t turn off themselves…..
             
            Then we can answer the question – “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

  • Even some NASA gate guards are the same way.In Hampton(Langley),they regularly pull over vehicles on base,make people stand outside in bad weather,and ransack the vehicle.If you say anything about it,they revoke your installation driving ‘ privileges’.Luckily,it’s not the majority of them,yet.But some of these people are real militarized hot shots,in the Charlie Sheen movie sense.

  • File formal complaints against every officer involved by name.  Cite chapter and verse.  Fight the ticket, which unfortunately is not easy as DoD facilities do not have the same sort of judicial oversight that you would get in even a civil traffic court.

  • Remember what seems to be the motto that replaced “protect and serve”…”STOP RESISTING!”

    • I like…
       
      “To tidy up and perhaps avenge…” wrt to violent crime.
       
      “To generate revenue…” wrt most traffic violations.

      • Man wasn’t wearing his seat-belt your lordship!
        That sort of thing damn near brings bout the end of Civ-ill-eye-zation it does, if you’ll pardon my direc way of speakin, your worshipfullness.
        We can’t have these peepull ridin round riskin their own lives like that, they need to be fined, and punished, when they risks their lives.
        And when they resist that punishment, they needs punishin harder as I see it, and if an occasional person is kilt while I’m trying to protect their lives from themselves, well, that’s sad, but there it is.
        Civ-ill-eye-zation is about laws isn’t it, and it’s against the law to hurt yourself.
        That’s why we have police, as I see it.

  • Most who act insufficiently servile, end up with “disorderly conduct” charges and fines.
     

  • After the morning coffee soaked in.
     
    Imagine the conversations occurring on the other side of this story to provide the antagonists their ongoing motivation…..
     
    There was joking up thread about shooting – not really a joke.
    The story on their side had to inflate this to the point where it kept chasing itself up the ladder and required multiple groups, each one presumably cloaked in more authority to serially come down on you.
    It required someone “finding something on him” they could ticket you for to further their attempts to intimidate, to let you know who was boss.
    So, it depends on what they might have thought they found about you that allowed them to ‘enforce’ as to whether or not they finally had you shouting “don’t tase me bro!” while they shouted “Stop Resisting!!!!!!”.
     
    I’ll even go so far as to venture to say you may not be done here kemosabe.

  • I have many LEO friends and one brother who was a LEO.  I also have a very good friend who used to administer all the psychological testing for LEO candidates in several counties in Texas, who reports to me that most candidates tested as sociopaths.  Take from that what you may.
     
    Still, it is a job you could not pay me enough to do, and for which I am very grateful.  A good LEO…like a good judge…is a very fine person, and much to be admired and supported.  They really DO an essential job.

    • Ask your LEO friends and your brother how many times they fixed tickets for their families, friends, and other law enforcement officers. Ask them how many times they saw corruption and misconduct in their own ranks and did nothing, even during a formal investigation. Ask them how many times they manufactured probable cause out of thin air to pull someone over so they could make their ticket quota. Ask them how many times they manufactured bogus K-9 indications so they could search someone’s car. I am more than positive your brother and your cop friends are guilty of most, if not all of the things I listed. This is why people don’t and shouldn’t trust today’s cops. Admire and support? Maybe twenty years ago, but not today.

      • Your tinfoil hat is a bit crooked.

        • You should read more. There is a constant stream of news articles detailed exactly that sort of corruption, all the time, all over.
          The notion that corruption only comes from a tiny number of “bad apples” is laughable.

          • Right.  All the time. All over. It’s ALL OF THEM.  THERE ARE NO DECENT POLICE OFFICERS ANYMORE.  A ‘constant stream of news articles’ proves it.

          • It’s ALL OF THEM.  THERE ARE NO DECENT POLICE OFFICERS ANYMORE.

            Is anyone, except for you, asserting that?
            If I were to argue in the manner that you argue, I’d respond with something like:
            “All cops are perfect, honorable people. Anyone who accuses a cop of doing wrong must be a criminal who is attempting to besmirch these fine people in blue.”
            But of course, you’re not saying that, so it would be dishonest of me to claim that you are.

          • @Elliot –
             
            Yes, MarcusJ did.  Did you not read what he wrote?  That’s what I was responding to initially.  If you’re not going to follow along and if you’re going to make silly assertions, please waste another person’s time. Furthermore, I never said anything about a tiny number of bad apples, so practice what you preach.

          • Yes, MarcusJ did.

            I’m not Marcus. You responded to me.
            I know that not all cops are bad. I’ve read stories about those with integrity who gave honest witness statements implicating other cops being harassed, fired, assaulted, and even murdered. One would hope that there are more with integrity who haven’t been placed in the cross-hairs of the “thin blue line” thuggery, or who were able to stand up to the bullies and keep them from getting anywhere.

  • next time don’t invite the problem and, when he tells you to keep your speed down, just say “ok” and move on.  if the cop wants to act like your mother, let him and ignore him and get on with your life.  all of your grief could’ve been avoided.   this does not sound like it was worth the hassle you put yourself through.
     
    bruce

    • Right. Be a good little subject, tug your forelock, and say, “As you wish, m’lud.”

      May your chains rest lightly upon you.

      • my chains are fine just like yours.  read what you wrote – you brought your misery upon yourself by your conduct at the front gate.  why are you being so stupid about this?
         
        bruce

        • Yes Dale … how dare you have an opinion (a correct one in this case), and more importantly have the temerity to state it outloud to a lout who was out of line?

          • yes, Dale, especially since it was you who were out of line?
             
            your unsolicited opinion on observing the speed limit fits nicely in your blog but didn’t fit so well with a cop (or anyone else) who doesn’t want or need to hear it.

          • So your argument is that telling a cop something he doesn’t “want or need to hear” is grounds for being repeatedly harassed?
            Why don’t you just endorse a new law: “contempt of cop”. It’s already de facto in place. Just make it official. We’ll all have to hold our tongues and not get “the man” upset.
            Call it Archimedes’ Law.

          • And again…
            Why is it necessary for Dale to have to endure the guards unsolicited opinion about observing the speed limit OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction?
            But Dale is not allowed to return the favor?
            You’re arguing that the authority figure is free to give Dale instructions in areas he has no control, but that Dale should watch out and not upset the cop?
            What you mean is don’t screw with the cop because everybody recognizes he can do exactly what he proceeded to do.   And from there we should just understand he can torque with us, and we should, as Dale noted, just say “as you wish m’lud” to avoid it.

    • Sounds like there are too many police on the base, since they have so little to do but spend their time hassling someone who merely made a remark to them.
      Hopefully, if they get chewed out, they will get the lesson that its not worth their time to hassle people.
       
       

      • no, my argument is that you brought the harassment and grief on yourself by giving attitude to the guard.  if Dale was trying to get the guard upset then it worked, and it appears to me that it was the grounds for his subsequent harassment.
         
        I’m not sure what you mean by Archimedes’ law but I think of it as being similar to Occam’s Razor.  for libertarians, you guys argue like liberals.

        • you brought the harassment and grief on yourself by giving attitude….

          That sounds like what abusive husbands tell their wives after a smack.
          The police are supposed to be professional.  They aren’t supposed to be acting like gang members, going after those who “dis” their fellow members.

          grounds for his subsequent harassment.

          GROUNDS FOR HARASSMENT? Please cite the UCMJ section which details the behavior for which law enforcement have grounds for harassment.  I didn’t realize that was official policy.

          Archimedes, a significant figure in physics and geometry, was murdered for not showing sufficient deference to an armed thug in uniform.

          • “That sounds like what abusive husbands tell their wives after a smack.”
             
            It also sounds like what Dale did.  And, yes, police are supposed to be professional.  So is Dale, and giving attitude when none is warranted is not professional.  Hope heswa happy with the result.
             
            And I’m talking about Dale’s attitude with the guard, not the UCMJ.  You’re the one who mentioned grounds for harassment, not me.  Focus please.

          • It also sounds like what Dale did.

            Now you’re the guy who is blaming the wife with the black eye, saying that the abuser’s statements are the same as her “provocative” statements.
            Apologist.

            And, yes, police are supposed to be professional.

            That is all. FULL STOP. Don’t qualify that. Don’t excuse unprofessional behavior.

            So is Dale, and giving attitude when none is warranted is not professional.  Hope heswa happy with the result.

            Too late.  You didn’t mean the previous statement about cops being professional.  You just meant they should be professional to people who act subservient and meek in their presence. You didn’t mean that cops should be professional, even when someone makes a comment which is not “warranted”.

            You’re the one who mentioned grounds for harassment, not me.

            You said, just above: “…it appears to me that it was the grounds for his subsequent harassment.
            Go read it.

        • “if Dale was trying to get the guard upset then it worked”
           
          How about we ask if it’s wrong to turn that around….”If the guard was trying to get Dale upset it worked”.
           
          You see any difference?   Why is it okay for the guard to dick with Dale when he’s outside his jurisdiction?   It’s okay because he’s a guard?
          Do you see the problem here?

          • I think the guard was reacting to Dale’s attitude not the other way around.  I don’t see how the guard was dicking with Dale either but you’re entitled to your opinion.
             

          • As Dale related in his version –
            PO2: (Scowling) You need to keep your speed down.
            Me: I always observe the speed limits when I’m on the installation.
            PO2: (Waving me through) You need to keep your speed down off-base, too.
            Me: (Starting to drive away) What happens off-base isn’t your jurisdiction.
             
            If we are to buy the premise, he slowed down within 50 yards of the gates.  So, half a football field approaching the gate.
             
            So, where is ‘you need to keep your speed down off-base’ coming from?  He’s seen Dale approach the gate, and from that interval in time where he has line of sight on the vehicle he infers Dale speeds, off base, and tells him to keep his speed down off-base.   Maybe he’s a LEO when he’s not doing his reserve duty, maybe not.   Maybe that’s where the order is coming from.   It is an order ‘you need to’ not ‘you should’.
             
            How is he not, in some manner of speaking, dicking with Dale?    It was sufficient, and within his job to tell Dale to keep his speed down on base, even if Dale maintains he always does, I can see it’s within the guard’s job to say that.   I’ve heard guards give this kind of ‘advice’ and follow it with ‘have a nice day’ with sincerity.
             
            All that aside, how is he not dicking with Dale when he stamps his little feet and proceeds to escalate this?     How are they not ALL stamping their little feet as this moves up the chain of command to the point where the Major in command of the base police force shows up? All because Dale pointed out, even snidely, that the guard at the gate is giving instructions for behavior in areas outside of his authority to do so?
             
            This isn’t just about the guard, it’s about an entire system that dropped into gear to deliver some weight to Dale’s door, all because they didn’t like his attitude.
            They went to the effort of manufacturing something they could write a ticket for.  Witnessed by Pass & ID tearing up the ticket.  Sounds like dicking with Dale to me.
            Or, in your opinion, is that what we should consider normal and acceptable law enforcement behavior?

          • And I think there was “attitude” on both sides of this.   I don’t think Dale will deny that.
             
            The point is that Dale can have ‘attitude’ and that’s all he can have.  The guard, and the chain of command above him, can have ‘attitude’ and use force to back it up.
            As I see it, the side that has and can legitimately use force (including lethal force) is obligated to restrain their attitude so long as the other side’s ‘attitude’ isn’t physically or legally threatening them.   The old saw about ‘with great power comes great responsibility’.
             
            Where is the justification from a legal standpoint for anything that occurred after the line:
            “Me: (Starting to drive away) What happens off-base isn’t your jurisdiction.”
             

          • “Now you’re the guy who is blaming the wife with the black eye, saying that the abuser’s statements are the same as her ‘provocative’ statements.”
            Elliott, you’re obsessed with wives and black eyes.  We’re talking about Dale’s conduct here, not anybody’s wife or a black eye.  You’ve lost this argument now.
             
            “Don’t excuse unprofessional behavior.”
            You first.  Stop excusing Dale’s unprofessional behavior.  Dale’s decision to carry on with the guard instead of shutting his mouth and going to his job is what precipitated the subsequent unprofessional behavior by the cops.
             
            And I read what I wrote.  Go read what Dale wrote.   This has never been about cops being bad bad bad.  If Dale had shut his mouth at the gate then probably none of what followed would’ve happened.  Situations caused by cops being bad bad bad occur often enough but this one is on Dale.
             
            Yes, sometimes some cops are unprofessional.  So are some managers at Burger King.  I’ve heard some drug dealers can even be violent sometimes but I’ve never seen it.  That only underscores the wisdom of not bringing it on yourself.
             
             
             

          • You’ve lost this argument now.

            Your inability to get your head around an analogy is more an indication of a deficit on your part, and in no way warrants your inane declaration of victory.
            You’re even confused about that gambit. You’re supposed to declare victory, take your ball, and go home. Continuing to argue after you assert winning just makes you look like you’ve got brain damage.

  • Mr. Prendergast, re recollection of the incident at the front gate was missing something.  I corrected for you:
     
    PO2: (Snippy) Are you running late this morning?
    Me: No.
    (At this point, I could instantly see that my answer displeased him so I decided to be an asshole.)
    PO2: (Scowling) You need to keep your speed down.
    Me: I always observe the speed limits when I’m on the installation.
    PO2: (Waving me through) You need to keep your speed down off-base, too.
    Me: (Starting to drive away) What happens off-base isn’t your jurisdiction.
     
    Also, ‘you need to keep your speed down off-base’ is coming from the guard, and your best response to that is an “ok” or else a nod of your head or maybe a “yes sir.”  Perhaps you’re new to the area but pushback like Dale’s might get you an unprofessional response in a situation like this.  That being said, I don’t think the guard was giving Dale an order so much as just saying it (kind of like Arnold Schwarzenegger was just saying “you shouldn’t drink and bake” in Total Recall as opposed to giving serious cooking advice), but the guard was stupid to say such a thing anyway because Dale could’ve easily backed up his remark with a gun or something else unfriendly.  Some guards aren’t as smart as others, and maybe this guy was in a bad mood too.
     
    Maybe Dale just doesn’t know when to turn off the libertarian in him.  Nobody was threatening his life or even close.  Sometimes tact and restraint goes a long way towards making sure you have a good day.
     

    • But what you’re implying is we should expect to suck it up if they go over the line because that prevents them from deciding to REALLY go over the line.
       
      I see that as a tissue for concern because it means we live in deference to whims when they have a bad day or a long memory for incidents past.  Shut and keep your head down is hardly the definition of free society where we HIRE these people to enforce the laws on our behalf.
      What comes out is, I think Dale ‘s point, “Don’t argue with your betters serf.”
       
      Hardly what we intended or should desire.  Reality dosen’t mean we ought to willingly embrace it.

      • Copsuckers.
        It’s why review boards find monsters like this not guilty, give them a paid vacation, and allow them to return to work to wield deadly power over the citizenry, knowing that if they abuse more people, they’ll probably get away with it, again.
        Some people will always defend the cops, until they are unlucky enough to be a victim and spend the night in jail.

  • Tissue?  I really love pad typing…….