Should You Inform A Law Enforcement Officer That You're Armed When Engaged By One?

I was in law enforcement for 32 years. If I got stopped, or otherwise was officially engaged by a LE officer, while on duty or off duty, I made it a habit of telling the officer that I was armed. It is what I was trained to do by my LE Firearms Instructors and what I trained others to do during my 16 years of collateral duties as a firearms instructor. I also was given that advice, to always notify (unless in some unusual scenarios) and I have stuck with it. I was taught that same thing by all six agencies by which I was employed: Border Patrol, Customs Patrol, Customs Office of Investigations, Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations. I also got the same advice/training from several other agencies/departments from which I received training during the course of my career. Beside my own agencies, I got the same training/advice from the: CA Highway Patrol, GA State Police, NY State Police, NYPD, Secret Service, DEA, Federal Air Marshals and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, that was that notification was the preferred way to go while both on & off duty. If assigned to work with outside agencies & departments, especially when on a detail to another state or area, I'd usually ask what was the preferred thing to do - notify or not. Even when there was no legal obligation to do so, everyone I asked said notification was preferred. Now in retirement, I continue that habit likewise; I see no good reason to change. I have never had an officer cop (no pun intended) an attitude about me telling them I was armed. I did have one give me a face full of shit in NYC when I did not mention it (probably the only time I did not).

The reaction of the officers usually is the exact opposite of them getting nervous, taking offense or giving me a hard time about it. The officer is almost always thankful and expresses it. That I spoke up almost always results in the officer seeing it as a good bit of respect from you to him. Someone up above, in a previous post, in essence said: ‘why tell them because you aren't doing anything wrong other than that for which they stopped you’. That is often the thought of folks talking about getting stopped - that you somehow know why they stopped you. Maybe you were speeding and you know it BUT maybe the officer is stopping you for a totally different reason about which you have no clue. Maybe it is because he just received a lookout on your make & model of car, the driver of which just shot two people dead in a robbery, and you fit the description somewhat (and mind you somewhat is more than enough to make the officer nervous). Do you think it would be better for the officer to spot your gun as you reach into the glove box to get your registration or would it be better to tell him. Or how about he orders you out of the car and onto your knees then tells you to lay down on the ground. Even more revealing that he stopped you for other than what you thought, he pulls you out of the car with force because unbeknownst to you – you do better than merely somewhat fit the description of an armed felon - you match pretty much spot on! In doing so, he discovers that you are armed gun. Which would make him more nervous, you being up front before any of that happened (or even while it is happening) or one of those happening – the that being him finding it considering he stopped you for a violent felony he believes you just committed?

I have notified officers I was armed in several states; they all pretty much reacted the same – they were happy I told them. When I do so, I always try to tell them when my hands are flat on the dashboard or over the steering wheel, fingers spread wide or if out of a vehicle - with my hands in plain view with fingers spread wide. I do not go to grab my wallet/licenses until told to do so and then ONLY after notifying the officer I am armed. I obey commands of the officer when he is at the car and any he gives before he gets there. If an officer stops you and stays at his vehicle and starts giving commands like turn off your vehicle, take your keys and toss them out the driver's window, then place you hands outside the driver's window or anything along the lines of making it more difficult for you to do something – and maybe you also just happen to notice he has his gun aimed in on you - you had better pay attention. Gun or not in his hands, or whether or not you could see it in the first place, do what he says, do it slowly not like a sloth but make no rapid or unexpected quick movements AND let him know you are armed. Of course, this is all only my opinion but it is based on lots of training, experience and good sense. I like not making them nervous because there is always that chance I am being stopped or otherwise am engaging with an officer for something completely different than what I had imagined.​

Sometimes when you are dealing with an arsehat cop and yes there are some out there (bit of sarcasm there just in case you didn't detect it), it is not easy to get in a word edgewise but I do my best and will not go to grab anything anywhere on my person or in the car before telling the officer I am armed. Since I retired, I simply say something like: 'Hi officer, my driver's license is in my wallet as is my concealed carry license, I am armed with a pistol on my right hip. I usually add that I am a retired federal LEO but not always. Sometimes I suspect that gets folks out of getting a ticket - no career in LE required. Some cops really are into firearms and some will chat you up and forget all about a ticket. I honestly have little experience with that since I retired; I have been pulled over zero times in the four years since I moved out of NY (as far as I can recall right now and the little gray cells are sharp tonight). Just wait though, I figure I'll be pulled over several times tomorrow - I am that guy! Most of my experiences of being pulled over though took place while I was working in LE and there were lots of those and a few stops when I was off duty. While retired, I have been engaged by officers a few times but not in car stops. For instance, after calling 911 subsequent to witnessing a crime or notifying the PD of shots fired or whatever brings me into official contact with an LEO that has a good chance of going wrong. If they are surprised by the fact I am armed the tension level goes up immediately and I prefer it not to do so.So, I try my best to always let them know in such situations that I am armed.

Another thing about notifying an officer that you are armed is that it may or may not be a legal requirement in the state in which you are at the moment you are engaged by an officer. It also may be confusing. Arkansas, my current home state, requires a Concealed Handgun Carry Licensee to inform an officer that he is armed on demand. Oddly enough, now that AR has constitutional permitless carry, a person carrying who does not have a CHCL has no obligation to inform an officer that he is armed - well kind of, sort of, almost so. Throwing another monkey wrench into it is this tidbit: When asked for ID by an LEO in AR, the person being asked MUST present his CHCL to the officer if he has one. So while you did not have to tell him you are armed because he did not ask, you still have to in essence notify him by giving him your CHCL if asked for ID and then you are ALSO required to tell him if you are armed at that time. More at the source. 

 

The laws in each state vary widely on this issue and can be as ridiculously legislated into law as those in AR (which by the way is a very friendly state for gun owners but as I indictaed, I think they really have overly complicated laws & regulations on the subject of firearms possession). Since these laws do vary so much in different states, I think it much better to not take a chance and just let an LEO know right from the start that you are armed. Heck, I even tell them there are guns in the trunk - or wherever if such is the case. As for why the laws vary so much, well they could not make it easy, it's like they have to complicate things simply because they are politicians and this goes for the great majority of them, especially the lawyers amongst them who all too often have zero practical experience in such matters. Why they don't just make it simple and easy to understand & remember by requiring anyone who is armed to notify an LEO is beyond the scope of my imagination.

By the way, if I call 911 for anything involving violence, a good chance of potential violence or really anything hinkey, I let the 911 operator know I am a retired LEO and am armed. Then I give them a detailed description of myself so they can let the officers know that the person fitting that description - ME -is "the good guy".

All that written and maybe actually even read by some of you, you can do it however you want but I will continue notifying LEOs that I am armed. I do it for my own personal safety and for the safety of the officer(s) and now you know why I do it.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

​

I'd Not Only Hang My Head In Shame...

 ...but probably would also resign, or even do something more drastic to show my repentance if I had been one of the law enforcement officers in the hallway during the school shooting in Uvalde. They evidently never even tried to open the classroom door of the classroom in which children were being massacred. That is if the report I just read is true, that the damned door reportedly was unlocked all the time they stood there doing nothing - until they finally went in - which was of course way too late for so many young children and two teachers. More on the door and other related issues at the source.

 

What could cause them to stand there waiting for something for which they did not need to wait. Having been in law enforcement for 32 years I can think of several things that could cause them to do that but cannot think of one that will excuse them. Here are what I believe may have been the cause(s) of their inaction:

 

1. One of the first offices to reach the door tried it - turned the knob or handle and either pushed or pulled the wrong way and not the other way, then mistakenly told other officers the door was locked. Sure, it sounds lame but I suppose it could happen in the heat of a very heart pounding moment when adrenaline is flowing hard and fast. I would think though that one other or more of them also would have have tried to door while waiting, that they seemingly did not is mind boggling. 

 

2. That maybe no one at all tried to open the door, that they just stacked outside, waiting while all assuming it was locked is a possibility. It is a possibility though that I can not imagine being reality.

 

3. They were scared shitless and cowered in the hallway frozen in place. In other words all of them were sniveling cowards. That, I find almost impossible but yet not absolutely impossible to believe. I find it almost impossible to believe mostly because they did enter eventually. Yet fear is a great de-motivator, as great as it is a motivator, so they could have been too scared to go in for some time before actually working up the courage to do so. I would certainly hope that was not the case.

4. That they all thought too much of the words of their training officers who taught them that the most important thing was getting home at the end of a shift. Yes folks, that is actually taught to law enforcement officers, I remember hearing it myself and it turned my stomach when I heard it. Now, I'll admit, I only ever heard it from one training instructor - it was not rampant. I would hope that was not the case.

 

5. They were under orders not to go in and obeyed those orders. I, for one, cannot imagine obeying such orders if I had been there hearing the gun shots being fired and pretty much knowing children were dying as I stood there waiting for an order to advance. That is a situation under which you must take command of the situation and use your own discretion. At least one of those officers, after hearing the shots going off, should have realized it was no longer a barricade situation and should have manned up and taken command and ordered an entry as I see it. I cannot imagine most of those I worked with in law enforcement just waiting because that was the order. I find it sad to believe that no one was willing to take the reigns and lead the entry to prevent children being killed.

6. That the officers there had not been properly trained for such a situation seems most likely to me. This would have made them more likely to remain in place after having been ordered to do so. I am not saying it is the case but to me seems the most likely. Either that or numbers 1 or 2 above.

 

There probably are other possible causes. No matter what it was that kept them standing there, if I had been one of them I am pretty sure I'd be resigning if indeed the door was unlocked that whole time. I'd also hang my head lower in shame than it is already hanging. It is already hung low because of the shame I feel over the miserable failure, of all those fellow law enforcement officers, to protect those innocent young children.

If I was the chief who gave the order to stand fast - the guy who ordered them to wait for everything - even for the keys that the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety now reportedly has said were never needed in the first place - I'd probably not only hang my head, I'd probably hang myself (not suggesting that chief do so, just saying what I might do). My guess though is that the chief is a mouth-breathing lowlife pompous arrogant and incompetent commander and that he feels little to no remorse at all. If he did feel remorse - I think he at least would have resigned almost immediately.

All the best,

Glenn B

 

 

 

 

No Matter The Excuse They Give Later - They Are Ball-Less...

 ...pieces of shit, in my opinion, to have left a fellow officer, alive or dead, inside with the assailant for as long as it's been (this reportedly commenced at 0944 and it's now 2220 hours - many hours after this started). They should be ashamed of themselves and if the officer who is trapped inside lives - I hope that officer never let's them live it down. See: https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-carolina-deputies-shot-watauga-county-standoff

That is all I will say and no one nor any excuse from the police will change my mind.

All the best,
Glenn B

The FBI Essentially Has Given Up...

...after less than two years of investigation! No, I am not referring to the investigation of Donald Trump for 'collusion' with the Russians. I am talking about the October 1, 2017 Mandalay Bay shooting, in Las Vegas, that resulted in the deaths of 58 people and injuries of almost 900! Those killed and otherwise shot were all allegedly mowed down by Stephen Paddock. It has become evident to me that the FBI is either virtually worthless when it comes to legitimate investigations and/or for some reason just does not give a damn about the 58 lives that were lost & their grieving families and loved ones, nor about the hundreds of people who were injured. I say so because of  what Aaron Rouse, the agent in charge of the FBI’s Las Vegas office, reportedly said about figuring out what was Paddock's motive:

"“It wasn’t about MGM, Mandalay Bay or a specific casino or venue,” Aaron Rouse, the agent in charge of the FBI’s Las Vegas office, told The Associated Press. “It was all about doing the maximum amount of damage and him obtaining some form of infamy.”"...
"“This report comes as close to understanding the why as we’re ever going to get,” Rouse "said." 

More at the source.

As close as we are ever going to get! It's all apparently supposition and the FBI is seemingly saying that is the best they can do - suppose this or that! Is this agent is throwing his hands up in the air and saying we give up, we in the FBI - a world class A1 investigative agency - are not smart enough to figure out his motive and show you the hard cold evidence by which we arrived at that conclusion? Maybe it is that the FBI is hiding something from us, is that possible? Do they really expect us to believe they do not know, or cannot uncover, his motive! Damn, they created the motive and even the whole crime, it seems, when it was convenient to them investigating our president. Yet, when it comes to a guy who killed 58 Americans and wounded hundreds more - they are left pretty much clueless! 

I find absolutely incredible that by now and forever afterward they do not and will not ever know what was his underlying actual motive and not be able to show solid proof of their conclusion as to his motive and that they essentially seem to be giving up. Damn, this investigation should remain open until his motive is found out conclusively. So why does it appear as if the FBI has given up? My guess, and mind you it is only a guess, is that Paddock had ties to powerful and influential people who want this investigation squashed. Again though, I stress that is just a guess on my part - maybe though it is based somewhat on the recent not so stellar behavior of other FBI agents in other recent investigations and actions that amounted to travesties of justice at worst and fiascos at best.

I pretty much have lost any faith I ever may have had in holding the FBI up as being one of the premiere law enforcement agencies in the world. After seeing what they did with the Clinton investigation, what they seemingly created with the alleged made up dossier to create a Russian collusion case against President Trump, how their agents have evidently lied under oath to Congress and smirked about it, how other of their agents and employees sent text messages back and forth ranting against Donald Trump ever becoming president and, as I recall, bragging about having a back-up plan to essentially oust him if he did become president, and how they have dropped the ball on this investigation (among others), it leaves no doubt in my mind that the FBI's investigative prowess and integrity amounts to just about naught. I am beginning to think that every one of their investigations, that were ever in the least bit questionable, going back many years, should be subjected to a srutinous review. 

All the best,
Glenn B

Do You Think The Judge Believed The Cops...

...when they told him the perp ate the evidence. Thank technology for dash cams.

All the best,
Glenn B

The Renewed FBI Investigation - My Predictions

The way things have been going with the federal criminal justice systems,  especially the FBI and The Department of Justice's handling of the Clinton email probe, I am going to guess/predict that the latest FBI investigation will again result in the exoneration of Clinton but will have the added benefits to her of:

 

1.     The FBI alleging that Donald Trump is a security risk and Russian spy.

2.    The FBI presenting allegations to the public that Donald Trump shared sexting messages with Anthony Weiner.

3.    The FBI making allegations that The Donald grabbed Huma’s private parts (witout telling us how much she finally enjoyed a real man) while Anthony Weiner watched from the closet.

4.    The FBI alleging that Trump grabbed Hillary Clinton’s private parts pussy after which, at first, Bill will vehemently deny he was ever grabbed by Donald. Bill will finally admit, in a tearful speech during an interview conducted by Anderson Cooper on CNN three nights before Election Day, that he was in fact manhandled by Trump several times.

5.    That the FBI has filed charges against Donald Trump for felonious mopery.

That is all,
GB
 

This Can Only Happen So Many Times...

...before the suspect who is confronting a law enforcement officer (LEO) seriously wounds or kills the officer or an innocent bystander. Restraint may be seen as the politically correct thing, the religious or moral high ground, the compassionate thing to do. However, when it comes to someone unlawfully threatening a person with imminent serious bodily harm or death, and if that person believed there was virtually no chance for escape from the threat, that person (in my opinion) should not hesitate to shoot or otherwise incapacitate the attacker by use of another form of deadly physical force.

I can understand that law enforcement officers are second guessing themselves and second guessing the intentions of the bad guys. If it is true though that the officer in this particular case would have been fully justified to shoot the suspect, then he probably should have done so in my estimation. As per Police Chief Randy Harvey that was the case:

"This video footage, it eliminated all doubt that this officer would have been justified if in fact it came to a shooting." 

But the officer said:

"I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force."

Sadly, the only way to be absolutely sure that someone is going to use deadly force against you is to allow them to actually do so. So what the officer said, in my judgment, is that he possibly would wait until he is actually harmed, or at least shot at or attacked in some manner, before he fired back. The law (here in NY and in most states of which I am aware of self defense laws) does not require anyone to be absolutely sure before defending themselves with deadly force. You usually need to have a
reasonable belief or probable cause (or something similar depending on how the law is written) to believe that you are being threatened with imminent serious bodily harm or deadly force - no law I have ever seen relative to use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of a third party states that you must be absolutely sure of anything.

It's nice that the officer did not get hurt, it's nice he did not have to shoot anyone; its nice he has a clear conscience and does not have to live with weighing his decision whether he was right or wrong, to maybe have killed a man, for the rest of his life; it's nice the suspect was not injured or killed. It's all wonderful this time because this time the officer's guess, that flew in the face or reason, was right. God bless him for making the right call and let's hope it was because something indicated the suspect was not really about to attack and not because of being hesitant to use deadly force for no good reason. 

Perhaps all that gives some people that warm fuzzy feeling all over and that is all well and good. Bear in mind though, it is all well and good until the same officer, or another, is faced with the same decision, in a very similar set of circumstances when the suspect attacks and maims or kills the officer or an innocent third party because the officer hesitated or outright decided not use deadly force when it was justified. Using deadly force is a tough decision to be able to make but you must be able to make it when it is justified and called for and you must be able to arrive at that decision based upon probable cause or reasonable belief (whatever is required by law) if you want to survive. If you cannot base your decision upon probable cause, you should find another career. I am not saying this officer needs to seek new employment - please read what I wrote and not what you want to think I wrote. I am saying if you cannot do such - then you are not fit for LE work. This officer has to think about what happened and decide that for himself.

I am dead set against the excessive use of force by police or civilians. Yet, I also think it less than responsible not to use deadly force when it is justified. Why? Because, sooner or later, some other officer will probably do likewise and wind up regretting he did so, that is if he lives long enough. Not every suspect who charges you yelling "kill me" is trying to commit suicide by cop, some are taunting, some are daring, some are psychos, some are going to be trying to get you to second guess yourself to give themselves that split second advantage, due to your hesitation to defend yourself, that is all they need to kill you. I do not look forward to reading the story where that happens. So, if deadly force would have been absolutely justified in this case, as the police chief indicates, then I think it should have been used. The officer's decision though was his own, he is lucky he guessed right. Had I been in that situation as a LEO, I in all likelihood would have acted in another manner had I believed my life or the life of another innocent was in imminent danger. Remember, you do not need to wait until knowing for sure that deadly force is about to be used against you in order for you to use deadly force to defend yourself. You usually need reasonable belief or probable cause that such is imminent (and in some instances for civilians you also need to reasonably believe you cannot escape -  check the laws of your state or locality on what is required). Of course, if you do know for sure, you had best act quickly to defend yourself and any others so threatened. As it turned out the officer in question is being patted on the back and has been given high praise; sadly though, had he guessed wrong, he would have been carried on his back and given high praise too - at his funeral. It is a tough call to make but it has to be made if you want to live to see another day with any amount of certainty.

I foresee more stories like this one coming out since as of late LEOs have been under fire for excessive use of force. I think more of them are going to become trigger shy, at least the good ones who truly live up to their oaths of office and who do their jobs ethically and with respect for the law and the public at large. Note, I am not saying they should be trigger happy but an LE needs to be able to make the decision to use deadly force and needs to know that such a decision should almost always be based upon reasonable belief or probable cause as required by the law and not upon absolute certainty. The courts need to realize that too. Every time LEOs shoot someone they need to be held accountable under the law and rightly so but lately they are held accountable to a much higher degree than even the law provides for because they are being held accountable to the whims and second guessing of the political correctness of: politicians seeking to use anything they can to their own advantage,  race baiters, malcontents, police-haters, anarchists, ambulance and hearse chasing lawyers, and other opportunists of the moment who are more than ready and willing to take advantage of an LEO shooting a suspect even if it was undeniably justified. You only have to look the recent events of Fergusson, MO to see that. 

Of course, there are also way too many cases of police involved shootings wherein the officers use excessive force and were not justified in using doing so. Prudent and just application of the law though is what is required to address those situations after the fact; there is no call for the lynch mob mentality that we have witnessed all too often. BUT - there must be prudent and just application of the law in each and every case and it must be transparent and completely open to public review. If we hung the bastards who resort to deadly force when not called for under the law, whether a LEO or not, and praised and rewarded those who use it, LEO or not, to justifiably stop a deadly threat, we would be much better off as a society.

All the best,
Glenn B

Law Enforcement Officers Many Of Them Truly Are The Good Guys

There has been a lot on the TV news, in the papers and on the Internet lately about police using too much force or doing other bad, sometimes even criminal, things. I sometimes agree that too much force was used and I definitely agree that police and federal agencies should not be allowed to militarize themselves as they have been doing. What you do not often hear about, probably because it happens every day and numerous times every day, are law enforcement officers who do their jobs as they should and who use only use force when necessary and then who use only the amount of force needed to legally get the job done.

One such officer has made the news lately, if only because she is connected to the man who allegedly beheaded the woman in OK days ago. That officer is a member of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. She reportedly encountered Alton Alexander Nolen in 2012 when she attempted to arrest him. As she tried to handcuff him, he violently pulled away from her ripping a piece of the flesh away from one of her hands and breaking at least one of her fingers. He ran, she pursued (source). According to Trooper Betsy Randolph:

"He kept looking over his shoulder because he knew I wanted to shoot him, but obviously I couldn't shoot him in the back,". "If there had been any way to know the things he is alleged to have done a few days ago I would have killed him when I had a chance." (source)

Actually she could have shot him in the back; the thing is though that she did not. She followed procedure, she followed regulations, she followed the law and she followed her conscious. She did not use excessive or even questionable force, she was a good trooper. The result, in a long drawn out remotely connected way, was that a lady lost her life and another was severely injured at the hands of an Islamist (let's call him what he apparently was and is) who in my mind is also a terrorist. That is not Betsy Randolph's fault, not in any way shape or form. For her to have made that statement though has me believing that she feels at least partly responsible although I hope that I am mistaken. She should feel no remorse for having done her job the right way even if it resulted in that scumbag being able to take even just one more breath because how could she have known - there was no way to know.

I can understand her though, the whole idea of wishing she could have known what he would have become and done and thus saying she would have killed him had she known. Does that make her in anyway a bad cop or a bad person, that wish that she could have known and then killed him? No it does not if only because of the way she said it with the condition "If there had been any way to know...". Of course she realizes there was no way to have known and thus she never would have gunned him down illegally. She is compensating for her feelings of having been powerless to stop a man who would become a seeming raving Islamic madman and with that I can empathize.

I am willing to bet that throughout the remainder of her career, she never abuses her authority to shoot or otherwise harm anyone, that she will keep with her whatever it was that made her exercise restraint that day back in 2012 when she could easily have shot him, that she will be remain one of the unsung good guys. I tip my hat to her.

All the best,
Glenn B

I Again Ask Myself - Why Am I, Or Anyone, A Law Enforcement Officer?

Sometimes I truly wonder why I, or anyone for that matter, ever gets involved in law enforcement work. Sure it is an honest way to make a living, you have a lot of potential to do good for your community, you get to do some adventurous things, and the pay can be excellent. Then again, when faced with some of the possibilities of a day's, such as the stress you can be put, the lack of respect you encounter, the hatred that is spewn at you, and the danger you can face - well I am right back to wondering why anyone would want such a job. Of course, the thing that makes me wonder the most is probably all of the second guessing like the charges of racism if an officer interrogates, arrests, or shoots someone of a minority group, the commissions and panels formed to determine if the officer acted in good faith within the scope of his duties, the defense lawyers , the civil attornies during lawsuits, the negative media attention and so on. I suppose all the negative stuff truly outweighs the good, or at least it should, in the eyes of a normal person and therefore no normal person would ever take a job as a law enforcement officer. I eam - would you be willing to face this at your job for let's say: $25,000 - $75,000 per year - and then realize that you may very well face the same thing everyday for the rest of your 25 year career?

Watch the video then answer the question again.



Yep, it always amazes me that we have anyone at all willing to take jobs as law enforcement officers. Yet, it amazes me even much more so that people in jobs like school teacher, garbage man, baseball player (yes even the big hitters), librarian, mayor, computer technician, college professor, construction worker, electrician, truck driver all think they are not paid enough for what they do while at the same time believing law enforcement officers are overpaid way too much. These people who complain about police salaries are the same people who complain about police racism, police cronyism, abuse of police power, and on and on and on. Sometimes I truly wonder why I, or anyone for that matter, ever stayed involved in law enforcement work once we were fool enough to hire on in the first place.

All the best,
Glenn B

Video Source: http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/crime_krez_aztec_video_of_2007_shootout_released_200907221356

How To Spend A Boring Day on Surveillance

Sometimes when a law enforcement officer is out on surveillance things can be just a little boring. I mean what with hours of sitting in a fixed location just waiting for something to happen. Other times, well they can be very boring indeed because nothing at all does happen. It is at times like these that the ever vigilant law enforcement officer may start watching things other than what he is supposed to be watching and thereby amuse himself. Sometimes he even gets a little squirrely from all the boredom and instigates some action to surveill - and that is when things get nutty. Take for instance the following photo essay on what I imagine is a common ground squirrel in the Tucson area:

Alert - Alert - Here comes trouble - head for the burrows fast...

Hey - wait a minute, what is it that that guy has in the bag; he's throwing some this way.

Wow, it looks like some sort of nut and sure smells pretty good but sure not like any nuts from around here. Should I take a bite?

I don't know if I can trust that guy - he looks like a New Yorker; then again pickings have been pretty slim around here lately. Oh what the heck - you only live once.

Wow - this is pretty good, what do you call these things?

Hey - where did all the nuts go?

Ah come on back Mister - we didn't mean nothin' by sayin you wuz frum NY.

**********

Now - of course - none of this really happened while any law enforcement officer was out on surveillance - these pictures were taken during my free time - but it is the kind of thing that could happen if one was driven to boredom on a nutty surveillance.

All the best,

Glenn B

A Sad Commentary On Law Enforcement At Our Borders

There I was driving along a country road, near a very small town here in southern Arizona realizing, when the realization hit me that I had probably just made a wrong turn. Not so much that I was lost or anything, just that I was out on my day off and thought I would head in the other direction than that in which I had been traveling to see what was in that direction. So when I spotted a sign for a historical marker ahead I figured I'd pull over and get my bearings. As I approached I could not help but notice a white pickup truck parked therein with hood up and a Border Patrol Agent looking into the engine compartment. Another white pick up was just pulling up next to the first one. As I pulled into the cut out for the historical marker I saw the second BPA get out of his vehicle and greet the first. It was OBVIOUS that he was there to help check up on the other guy, and both started looking under the hood of the first pick up. They were at the near end as I pulled in, and I drove to the center next to the historical marker, maybe 20 or 25 yards from them and stopped to read the little bit of history written there. I then pulled to the far end of the small parking area, maybe 50 yards long, and took a look at my GPS to help me decide which way I wanted to go. I was thinking of heading to Sierra Vista but as it turned out I went to Parker Canyon Lake but like today while on the road I am straying again so allow me to get back to my point.

My point is that as I drove passed the two Border Patrol Agents it was obvious that neither was holding a long arm. Not the first guy who had been under the hood, nor the second guy who drove up to help him. Yet when I pulled to the far end of the parking area to check my GPS and looked back at them it was obvious that the second guy was holding a rifle and had it pointed in my direction as he looked over my vehicle. No it was not mounted on his shoulder ready to fire, but was slung in front of him and pointed in my general direction as he gawked at my car. A couple of things were immediately apparent: He had gotten the rifle out of his vehicle once I pulled over to the historical marker, and more importantly that he probably is/was paranoid. The truth be told, a lot of things have changed since I was in the Border Patrol and the current state of affairs what with Washington basically allowing an invasion of our nation to take place is not one of the bigger changes - yes it was virtually the same when I was in 25 plus years ago. Sure it is worse today, but the invasion began before even I was in the Patrol and the politicians have allowed it. Things that have changed are: the number of armed alien and drug smugglers, the increase in disrespect for the law, and the worsening conditions in Mexico with regard to drug czars in essence running the border of that country.

Does any of that justify this knucklehead grabbing a rifle out of his truck simply because I pulled into the same parking area, on a public highway, as he and his fellow agent were using. I think not, I know that back in the day I certainly would never have grabbed a rifle in similar circumstances, nor would I do so even now on my current job. I made no suspicious or threatening moves, I did not exhibit sort of behavior that should have heated this guy up, I had my windows open and could easily be observed (it was a wonderful 68 degrees at the time), I stopped to look at the historical marker as might anyone else who was passing buy, I had Arizona plates on the vehicle I was driving, I was just another guy. Yet for some reason, in some way, it seemed appropriate to this agent to retrieve his rifle and then point it in my direction. Fuck that shit! This is a different Border Patrol than the one I knew. With a mindset like that among some of the BPAs I would not work for the Border Patrol today even if you tripled my salary - and my salary is quite a bit more than even that of a supervisory Border Patrol Agent.

Don't get me wrong, I feel their pain. I can understand their being on edge all of the time. I know that we need to get tough on people and drugs illegally crossing our borders. Hell if you read any of my stuff on illegal aliens you know I am pro enforcement of our sovereignty and I support the U.S. Border Patrol 100%. Yet there was no need for such a display of force today although I can understand the underlying anxiety (or even the paranoia) that triggered it; and I know the agents are not at fault for creating that monster. We truly need to keep the pressure on the politicos in DC to get something done to correct the situation to secure our Borders and to keep our nation and our citizens (including Border patrol Agents) safe because as things are now life for an LEO on the border sucks. That my friends is my short commentary (based upon my personal opinion) on the conditions of LE at our borders.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Comparison of Our Law Enforcement Officers To Nazis...

...is something that all too often can often be found on forums on the Internet. As a matter of fact, I recently visited a firearms forum in which the actions of police here in the USA were compared as being similar to Nazis. In the particular instance being discussed, a man was out doing yard work while legally wearing a handgun in a holster. The handgun was worn in plain view (which was quite legal where he lived). One of his neighbors called then police to report him. The police responded, detained the man wearing the gun, and after a somewhat extended period of detention decided to arrest him for disturbing the peace, or so the story is told. In the forum discussion about this event, our police (the officers in question, and law enforcement in general in the USA) were compared to Nazis in an unfavorable light for our police. I replied twice to said forum and in both posts I made sure to point out that I thought it ludicrous for people in general to say that law enforcement officers in the USA are similar to the Nazis. (Oh did I forget to mention, the man is now suing the police. Can you imagine someone arrested in WWII suing the Nazis over said arrest?)

Why do I think that our law enforcement, here in the USA, are not like the Nazis. I guess it can be best explained by my second post at said forum, and I have reprinted my response below:

"Some of you folks really seem to have little to no real comprehension of what Nazism was all about, or about Nazis themselves. You continue to twist the facts to make it look as if the police in the USA are strikingly similar to them. Do they use informants, yes but so have all police departments throughout history - so maybe you got it backwards - maybe the Nazis were using a technique used by legitimate authorities for their own twisted ends. As for the Nazis using words like "papers please" you have been watching too many WWII propaganda movies. They did not ask for papers please in the course of making arrests, they carted people off while the people dirtied themselves out of fear. Papers Please - you really believe that about Nazis, yeah maybe when they dealt with a delegate from another government or from the International Red Cross, or when they were being ruthlessly sarcastic, but you have got to be kidding that you think the Nazis routinely used such courtesies. No the police in this country for the great majority are nothing at all like Nazis, but you can believe what you want. Or you can try to find out what it was really like. Why not get together with a survivor of Nazi Germany, or better yet with several of them, and discuss Nazis with them. Your eyes will be opened. Being of partial German descent, living in a German neighborhood up through my twenties and often coming in contact with Germans who were in Germany during WWII, living in NY and frequently coming in contact with Holocaust survivors, and being a person somewhat interested in history, my curiosity was always seeking to be satisfied about this subject. Over the years, I have met with, and discussed Nazis and life in Nazi Germany with several survivors of the Holocaust. I have also had in depth discussions with members of the German military from WWII. In addition I have had many discussions with German citizens who lived in Germany during WWII and encountered Nazis on a daily basis in their lives; and that includes with some people who still live in Germany. I also have discussed Nazis with people who were from Poland and Russia and who encountered Nazi oppression in WWII. Our police forces are not like Nazis, and those to whom I have conversed on such maters would likely laugh at you for thinking so, or maybe they would just shed a tear that you could even think such a thing of our police for whom they have respect.

I am truly amazed that anyone would think so if they really knew anything about what life was like under the tyranny of Nazi Germany. By the way, if you would truly like to get a real glimpse into what it was like, and if you cannot find any survivors who lived through it with whom to discuss it, there is an excellent and very short book called Night by Elie Wiesel. It is well worth the few dollars to purchase it, or a trip to the library to borrow it, and is well worth the few hours to read it.

Before I close on this one, please allow me to make a final observation. I am over a half century old. In all of the years that I can remember, I have never once heard anyone who was actually brutalized by Nazis, or who was persecuted in any way under Nazi rule, complain that the police in the USA are anything at all like Nazis unless that person was an absolute ultra leftist of the card carrying commie type – and then they called everyone who did not agree with them Nazis. Yeah maybe there are a few out there who would make, or have made, such remarks who were regular Johns and Janes but they are a rarity. Then again there are or were tens if not hundreds of thousands who escaped or survived Nazi persecution and came to the USA after during and after WWII. Yet, for some reason, they do not call our police Nazis or say that they are similar; and isn’t it they who would know! It is very funny to me though how it is the American citizen, living in relative comfort and able to enjoy his rights and liberties to a great extent, who is the one to call our police Nazis or to compare our police to the Nazis in a negative light. Think about that, and think about why it is that way, and then ponder the fact that you are at liberty to do so without being rounded up, placed into a cattle car, forced to labor in subhuman conditions, experimented upon by what amounted to mad scientists, and left for dead or killed in a horrible manner such as by gassing with Zyclon-B, and then having the gold from your fillings collected to enrich the Third Reich (or maybe to just be stuffed into the commandants pockets). Our police like Nazis, even on their worst days the comparison is ludicrous. Why not really try my suggestion to get a better understanding of life under the Nazis before you even think such things about the police in the United States on the whole."

Yes I will agree that it seems all to often that law enforcement in the USA oversteps the bounds of its authority, or that police officers make all to many arrests based upon bad probable cause (which equals no probable cause), or that law enforcement comes after people they should not (but remember they are guided by the legislative and judicial branches of our governments (local, state and federal) on much of this, as well as being directed by the executive branches). Yet we usually have some sort of redress. We can have our day in court, and if found innocent we can cause the officers or departments and agencies to have their day in court when we sue them. Just imagine having tried that in Nazi Germany. We can bad mouth them too, and we can call them Nazis and therefore by implication call our government a Nazi Regime. We can get as bent out of shape as we want and keep the name calling going for a month of Sundays if we want. We can call cops pigs, we can give federal agents the finger, we can tell LEOs we hate them, and that we are going to write to our Congressmen about them. All the while they usually eat the shit some of you throw in their faces. Imagine what a real Nazi, say an SS officer would have done in response to you calling him a pig and giving him the finger. He would not have stood there taking it from you, you can bet your life on it.

Now, while crude, rude, obnoxious treatment of law enforcement officers in the USA today is no excuse for them to shirk their duties or to overstep the boundaries of law - should they do so - well the truth be told they usually pay for wrongdoings they may commit. Guess who comes to arrest them - other LEOs - other guys you refer to, or compare to, Nazis! Do law enforcement officers screw up - sure they do. Do some violate your rights while trying to enforce the law - sure they do. Do some violate the law themselves - yes indeed - way too many. Do some commit atrocious criminal acts - yes indeed. Does that make them Nazis across our nation on the whole? You have to be of another reality, a twisted and sick one, and a misinformed one (about what is a Nazi) to believe that such is the case. Do we need to be on the watch for Nazism rearing its ugly head. Yes we do. In fact we are being vigilant all the time for that and for other forms of tyranny.

You see, here in the US of A, law enforcement is ruled by something called the law, and law enforcement officers are subject to the law as are you and I. Try to remember we are the ones who voted in the legislators who write and vote on the laws, and we are the ones who elected the executives who sign the bills into law, and we are the ones who elected the executive who appointed judges (or maybe we even voted for the judges) who rule on the law and those laws are applied to our law enforcement officers as well as to ourselves. Are their some exceptions where the law is somewhat different as it applies to an LEO than it does to a non-LEO, most certainly there are some, but not many. The bottom line is that law enforcement officers in this nation are part of our government, our legally elected and appointed government that we put in place. In no way, on the whole, do our federal, state and local law enforcement officers come even close to the Nazis in similarity of purpose, in execution of duties, or in their treatment of the citizenry. Any of you who think otherwise have an awful lot of learning to do on the subjects of Nazis, Nazi Germany, their victims, and the survivors of that tyranny most despicable.

All the best,
Glenn B