lauras-pic

“We’re advocating the safety for our police officers, but on the other side you have the N.R.A. and other special interest groups that say, ‘If you’ll do this, we’ll endorse you and make you look good.’ We don’t have anything to offer them other than good advice.” – Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police executive director Ken Winter in As States Expand Gun Rights, the Police Object [at nytimes.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

Recommended For You

39 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: All We Have is Good Advice

  1. I bet this guy wishes he was born earlier so he could be enforcing EO9066 against innocent Americans instead of having people question his power.

    • I understand where he’s coming from; civil rights ALWAYS make a cop’s job harder. It would be far easier if cops could kick-in doors and search at will, beat confessions out of suspects, arrest or shoot anyone seen carrying a gun in public, etc.

      Unfortunately for them, that’s not how it works. They can whine all they want about it, but they also need to learn to deal with it.

  2. Anybody have the numbers on how many cops have been killed by people who were legally carrying a gun?

    • Depends: Are we including instances where the officer was committing a crime?

      If not, then the count is zero.

      • And I’m guessing you didn’t bother to even TRY to find out if what you’re saying there is true, eh?

        Here’s a few:
        Humberto Delgado, Jr
        Michael Dewayne Bowman
        Ashford Thompson
        Christina Korbe
        Michael Donovan Oswald

        I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Just because someone has a permit and\or can legally carry a gun doesn’t mean they don’t commit crimes.

        • Every criminal started out clean. CCW holders commit gun crimes at insignificant numbers and Cops have little to fear from license holders versus disallowed types.

    • I think your point is one that we all agree with vis a vis responsible gun owners. That is definitely where the divide is between us and the antis. They feel that all citizens (excluding an exclusive cadre) are completely irresponsible and untrustworthy when it comes to firearms and self-defense. However when you look at us POTG, we are overall a peaceful, intelligent, caring group that value law and order. You will not find POTG flaunting/brandishing their firearm near a school like the article claims. That is at best a douche move and at worst criminal. We are not the people the police need to be worried about.

    • Actually almost ALL of the rank-n-file cops that I know or have had contact with will repeat the mantra that when in direct contact with a citizen in the course of their duties, that they need to disarm said citizen until after the contact is over. For the officer’s safety……
      I have challenged every officer that I come in contact with to give me even ONE example of where a CCL holder has shot or threatened an officer; none can. But the mantra seems to be almost universal, especially from the younger generation. I suspect that the push is coming from the academies. Some of the older officers seem to respect CCL holders, but not all.
      I DO know that the number of officers convicted of firearm related felonies exceeds the number of CCL holders convicted.

  3. It’s usually not the rank and file who object to freedom. It’s the political hack chiefs.

    • Word. I love the Bill of Rights. If I count to ten, I’ll even use the number 2 right after 1 and before 3. Armed civilians are one of the best ways to keep hooligans in check.

      • “If I count to ten, I’ll even use the number 2 right after 1 and before 3.”

        …Like the Holy Hand Grenade? (Hey, sorry – I had to do it 🙂 )

    • I don’t have a lot of love for Police Chiefs. They are very political and usually are employed at the will of the Mayor or the City Council. Most of their ‘opinions’ will reflect the will of those who sign his paycheck.
      The rank and file tend to be rather conservative and don’t usually begrudge the citizenry having arms. Their clientele are the same recidivist offenders that spend their whole lives in and out of prison.

  4. Guessing this guy is up for a political appt. Rank and file that I’ve spoken with have always been pro 2A

    • And why shouldn’t they? They have nothing to lose, at that level, by being honest about their views and objective about people’s rights.

      Once they rise through the ranks, however, and get a taste of greater power, prestige, and money, then they realize that statism stands ready to reward their ambition. So they do the political machine’s evil bidding and start spewing long discredited, anti-gun cliches.

      Really, so-called “political hack” police chiefs are not conceived in labs. They’re not incubated in cocoons only to emerge from university departments of criminology at age 50 with newly minted Ph.D. degrees and a fresh hankering for firearms freedom infringing.

      These satraps ooze up from the same stale ranks of officers as the rest. They only appear to think and act differently because now they’re faced with different incentives. It’s not that the rank and file are oh so good people. It’s that in the puniness of their positions, their beliefs on firearms freedom, eithee pro or con, eventuates in no professional benefit to them. Once they do rise high enough, though, where what they espouse does indeed impact their careers and perhaps futures in politics, then you see them easily assume a fascist form.

      Think of rank and file officers like small children: their innocence has more to do with the frailty of their limbs than with the purity of their hearts.

      • They escape the ‘rank and file’ as soon as they can… they’re the guys that go from the academy to a desk as soon as possible.

        • I don’t know about that. Sounds plausible, though. Still, everyone starts out as a patrol officer. It can take 7-10 years just to make sergeant. Doesn’t sound like much of a fast track.

          Look at Houston. Our Interim Chief is Martha Montalvo. She joined HPD in 1980. She didnt even earn her B.A. degree until 1990, which is necessary for moving up the ranks.

          Look at LAPD’s Chief Beck. He actually seems a reluctant officer. He majored in “Occupational Studies-Vocational Arts” at Cal State Long Beach, not in Criminal Justice as most future officers do. He actually served in the LAPD reserve officer for two years before hiring on full time.

          Neither of these two big city chiefs seemed destined for or desperately seeking the top jobs. Now, NYPD’s Commissioner Bratton, I’ll give you that one. Whatever Chicago has going on, I’ll assume likewise is crooked.

  5. Why are the police such an active lobbying group these days? They should focus a little more on enforcing the law properly and a little less on trying to dictate it.

  6. Typical progressive bullsh*t… When you can’t control guns in the hands of criminals, control the rest of us. F*ck him.

  7. Any association that uses Chiefs as part of its name doesn’t have enough Indians for me to be willing to listen to them!

  8. Why the average law-abiding citizen might need a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round magazines, when the police will protect them:

    Rodney King Riots – LAPD “First-To-Flee” the scene of the riots. Some of the arrested looters were members of the California National Guard.

    Columbine – Deputy sheriff first person to observe armed students, failed to confront and pursue the shooters.

    Hurricane Katrina – NOLA’s Finest were filmed looting stores along with riffraff. They also disarmed as many law abiding citizens as they could.

    Most policemen are good, honest and hardworking but they are not likely to put their lives on the line very often (some never) when they have their own families to support and are neither trained nor paid for combat. Citizens are on their own when the going gets really tough.

  9. police chiefs are nothing more than glorified politicians and often are promoted to chief based entirely upon political reasons not merit

  10. I’m sure the police think their job would be “easier” with the power of torture and summary execution too.

    • Don’t you watch / read the news? The police already have those powers and use them on a daily basis.

    • Opie’s little brother is a pro-gun conservative republican. He has stated he can’t work because he differs from the left-loon hollyweird hacks(like his big brother). As far as cops-the vast majority I have known(a lot in my 60some years) hate me carrying a gun…

    • “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” – Jefferson

  11. The police always object to freedom. Fewer things being arbitrarily illegal means fewer government thugs needed to keep the populace obedient.

  12. It’s not surprising that the wolves of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police would prefer the sheep to have no teeth.

  13. The police have to remember they work for us, and not the other way around. If the people desire gun rights, then the cops just have to shut up and deal with it.

  14. The vast majority of police chiefs represent their political bosses and advocate for them and their wolly political views over that of cops.

  15. I suspect that the chief and I have radically different ideas of what constitutes “good advice”.

  16. I have two very good friends that are cops. They are pro 2A, conservative, good family men. We all share the opinion that the police, especially in smaller cities and towns, are just clean up crews. They come after the crime occurs, when the damage has already been done. Every individual is responsible for being armed. We POTG know that when seconds count, the police, even the best of them, are minutes away. The belief that the police can protect you from all the evil scum in the world is unrealistic. Just like most most liberal beliefs.

  17. “We’re advocating the safety for our police officers, but on the other side you have the N.R.A. and other special interest groups that say, ‘If you’ll do this, we’ll endorse you and make you look good.’ We don’t have anything to offer them other than good advice.” – Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police

    So: “Your safety isn’t our job, so we won’t even mention the impact of disarming you on, you know, you.” Well, good of him to be out front with it.

    If that’s the case it falls to us – the citizens – to advocate for our own safety, which we though at one time we contract the police to help with. Apparently, not so much.

    Speaking up for ourselves, as Advocate-Winter and his do not, we sometimes express ourselves through the citizen-version of an industry group. While it’s inconvenient for Advocate-Winter and his employers for contrary voices to use the same tools they do, I’m not sympathetic. How’s this. We’ll consider not advocating as a group once they stop doing so. We’ll wait.

    Since impacting their agenda is what it takes to get politi-critters’ attention, people who care about their personal defense, shooting hobby, or both might mention that they vote and do issues advocacy during elections. It’s called the people expressing themselves. That’s covered by the inconvenient amendment before the inconvenient 2nd. While Advocate-Winters is paid by an industry group, the law, the government, and the elected officials do not exist for his convenience, or his employers (as much as he & they might want it to be so.) So, inconveniently, we’re here too, we get a vote, and the politi-critters also work for us.

    That said, since group advocacy by citizens, and attempting to influence elections of our representatives, so that they, you know, represent our preferences, seems to bug Advocate-Winter, I’ll speak individually, separate from any given election, and, conveniently, in the terms Lobbyist-Guy just used.

    Along with officers’ safety, we also care about citizens’ safety (which Advocate-Winter didn’t mention; we’re not paying him.) We care about citizens’ safety:

    … when credible defense discourages thuggery, predation and terrorism. Better nothing start, and the apparently always-armed (Paris, much?) bad guys seem to go elsewhere when there’s possible opposition. Removing the relative safety of being armed in these situations concerns us, but, apparently neither Advocate-Winters nor his employers.

    … during the time it takes officers to arrive. Every mass shooting of such press and buzz in recent years happened while officers were yet to arrive. Removing the safety of being able to stop a bullet-spewing crazy, or simple rabid coyote concerns us, but, apparently neither Advocate-Winters nor his employers.

    … when confronted by political intimidation. Gauntlets of intimidation, throttling peaceful politics dissolve when opposed, like other kinds of thuggery. The choice of getting beat up, or disenfranchised concerns us, but, apparently neither Advocate-Winters nor his employers.

    … sometimes, in the presence of bad cops. The inaccuracy of dispatched raids, of shots fired (NYC much?), and of reports after the fact all council that sometimes slowing things down with cops on a tear is prudent for responsible, peaceful citizens. The possibility of getting raided in error (or SWATed), shot up, then covered up concerns us, but, apparently neither Advocate-Winters nor his employers.

    I commend Advocate Winter for his rhetorical and ethical flexibility in service to them as pay him. He has made it clear that we – citizens – do not count in his calculations. By choosing and supporting him, the police organizations he represents have indicated the same.

    I look forward to the reports of his termination, of his ill-considered statements being denounced, of advocacy for citizens’ safety out of the NYT, the Mississippi association, and the various individual departments involved. Hearing no such thing, I have to believe that the NYT and etc. join Advocate-Winter in his indifference to citizens’ safety. Good to know.

  18. Police officers are agents of the state. Their job is (ideally) to enforce the law. Nothing more, nothing less. Ostensibly, they are there (ideally) to catch criminals who have violated Common Law. Their authority, as well as their opinions on the law, end there. Therefore, in any professional capacity, they get no say on issues such as the civil rights of the citizenry they’re supposed to be serving – as much as they seem to think they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *