Guess The State!

[theweaselking]

Traffic stop-ee: "Officer, I..."
Police officer: "SHUT THE FUCK UP"
Traffic stop-ee: "I am carrying ..."
Police officer: "NOBODY IS TALKING TO YOU, SHUT UP"
Traffic stop-ee: "Officer! Here is my permit for..."
Police officer: "SAY ONE MORE WORD AND YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL"
Traffic stop-ee: "..."
[Police officer searches car, comes to driver]
Police officer: "GET OUT OF THE CAR! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT CARD YOU KEEP WAVING AT ME?"
Traffic stop-ee: "Officer, I am carrying a concealed weapon. This is my permit."
Police officer: "YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT IMMEDIATELY! I SHOULD EXECUTE YOU RIGHT HERE AND NOW"

On video, of course.


[Poll #1763936]

Comments

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

You know that handguns being illegal doesn't mean that "any person you search" CAN'T pull a gun on you, right?

Yes and in those cases if anyone did pull out a gun it would be a major national case, a specialised team of gun-trained officers would be called in and the criminal could expect the helicopters to come in and start a man hunt immediatly.

Whereas here, what, they're expected to worry about whether it's legal for this guy to have firearms tucked in his back pocket? Screw that.

[darquis.livejournal.com]

I'd *much* rather it didn't take "a specialised team of gun-trained officers". Would you make law enforcement professionals with actual experience with guns a scarce commodity that has to be called in for emergencies, like a SWAT team? What would be the benefit in that?

Whereas here, what, they're expected to worry about whether it's legal for this guy to have firearms tucked in his back pocket?

...no, they're expected to be aware of the risks inherent in being a law enforcement officer. A couple of years ago in my country [where carry permits have so many idiotic requirements, most law abiding citizens have no chance of ever getting one] a policeman was killed by a teenager with a knife. Assault on a police officer is a very thoroughly prosecuted crime regardless of the weapon, its legality, and the extent of injuries sustained by the cop in question. Still, people in high-risk professions run a higher risk of getting hurt on the job, you know?

Now, trigger-happy cops worry me much more than a citizen trying to let law enforcement professionals know that he's legally carrying a firearm. Like this case in Seattle. (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/john_williams_native_american.php) This is also relevant to the topic of this post - police officers should know better than to shout down someone trying to give them vital information, shoot a deaf carver, put 19 out of 41 bullets into a Guinean immigrant, mistake their sidearm for a Taser, etc, etc. They're supposed to be trained to know better. [Key words here being "supposed to", as the system looks quite broken.]

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I'd *much* rather it didn't take "a specialised team of gun-trained officers".

You'd rather the quality of gun training and expertise in the rarer cases where guns are needed was lower?

Admittedly there are countries where the police carry handguns even though ordinary people aren't allowed them, but personally I find that a little bit scary.

Now, trigger-happy cops worry me much more than a citizen trying to let law enforcement professionals know that he's legally carrying a firearm.

If handguns were illegal there'd be less need for the police to carry guns in the first place. A knife-proof vest and a nightstick will protect police from knives a lot better than a gun will (what with the gun being a long range weapon).

They're supposed to be trained to know better.

Nobody's perfect. You're better off not having guns around. That way whenever a handgun shows up you can be almost certain it's illegal. (Rifle's and the like will require a little more inquiry, but at least they aren't so easily hidden and the fact that you are in a rural area where people might want to hunt wildlife and will have permits to do so will make things rather easier.)

[rev-ursa.livejournal.com]

Every time that someone who does not train regularly with a firearm (say, the British police) is handed one and sent into an emergency situation there's a bloodbath. Because the police are so nervous about the guns that they over react and can't hit the broad side of a barn. As for SWAT, what you're talking about seems to be a group of cops whose only duty is to react to violent situations, not the 90% of other police work that just requires a authoritative voice. Nice drain on the taxpayers money.

Wanting guns to just "go away" is like wanting porn to go away. It's out there, people enjoy it, and will pay for it.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

Every time that someone who does not train regularly with a firearm (say, the British police) is handed one and sent into an emergency situation there's a bloodbath.

When's the last time that happened? *scratches head*

If we send someone in with a firearm it's because they've been properly trained to use it. It's their job. We don't just hand firearms to ordinary police officers.

Nice drain on the taxpayers money.

1) Are you saying that there aren't enough people with guns legally or illegally to justify specialised armed police units in the UK?
2) Are you serioulsy saying that the entire police force should be armed simply to justify police funding? I'm not sure I understand that logic at all.

Wanting guns to just "go away" is like wanting porn to go away. It's out there, people enjoy it, and will pay for it.

You could say the same about murder. Doesn't mean you can't do the utmost to prevent it.

There was someone the other day explaining that there were bullies at their school with guns. I found it shocking, but for them that's just how life was. To be quite frank, I am very glad to live in a country where guns are not seen as a fact of life we should just accept.