Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Chuck wrote:I too, think the OP was "wronged"

He wasn't stopped for violating a law, he was stopped expressly to see if he was drunk or not, and the license light was just the excuse.
If the light was OK. it would've been for something else.
We all know that it is impossible, for all practical purposes, to drive a couple miles without doing something that a cop can stop you for if he chooses.
This is part of the big brother system that everyone is guilty of something, and therefore, the cops can stop anyone at any time; probable cause is always there.
This makes it easier to control the masses

And failing that, they can just LIE. I've seen it with my own two eyes, and for EXACTLY the same purpose.

charliej47 wrote:I said that he was an arrogant LEO with a "us Vs them" mentality. My wife and daughter and I talked about seeing more and more of this type of official. As an older generation, I miss the LEOs that we used to have. When I was growing up and when my children were young I was taught and I taught my children to think of the LEO as a "go to" person. Over the last couple of years I am seeing more and more LEOs with this attitude.

Agreed. When I was growing up in the 1970's, a couple of my friends Dad's were police officers. They had hair on their heads, maybe a bit of a gut, and they looked and acted like normal men. Come the end of their shift, they hung up their uniform and blended in with the rest of us. Fast forward to the present and we have these loud mouthed, shaved head, barrel-chested automatons who TBH all look, sound and act the same in my eyes. Lately, people lament the "militarization" of the police but IMHO they are mostly referring to the modern equipment, clothing (BDU like appearance) and tactics. The true militarization has been taking place for some time now - gradually filtering out the civilian applicants and replacing them almost exclusively with ex-military personnel. The biggest question on my mind is who the Hell decided that military personnel were somehow more suitable for policework...and in hindsight, might this have been a very bad decision?

Thank the civil service system for that. Military get bonus points for police and fire.

I do not blame vets for taking the tests and getting the jobs at all. It's the system that is not right.

Veterans have been joining police departments since after the Civil War.

What's changed is the organizational cultures of police departments.

Many of them are now acting like a hostile army of occupation in a foreign country and treating the citizens like enemy combatants. In past decades, this was common in minority communities. Now it's spreading across society as a whole and people are taking notice.

The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).

Unanimous decision, almost 20 years ago, and virtually unmodified. It is what it is.

Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. R.C. 4513.05(A). [Effective: 01/01/2004].

Once again, it is what it is.

glocksmith wrote:
Agreed. When I was growing up in the 1970's, a couple of my friends Dad's were police officers. They had hair on their heads, maybe a bit of a gut, and they looked and acted like normal men. Come the end of their shift, they hung up their uniform and blended in with the rest of us. Fast forward to the present and we have these loud mouthed, shaved head, barrel-chested automatons who TBH all look, sound and act the same in my eyes. Lately, people lament the "militarization" of the police but IMHO they are mostly referring to the modern equipment, clothing (BDU like appearance) and tactics. The true militarization has been taking place for some time now - gradually filtering out the civilian applicants and replacing them almost exclusively with ex-military personnel. The biggest question on my mind is who the Hell decided that military personnel were somehow more suitable for policework...and in hindsight, might this have been a very bad decision?

Might this have something to do with the nature of today's military? Traditionally the military has consisted of a professional core enhanced during wartime by conscription plus enlistment. Resulting in a mixture of professional soldiers and civilians who were temporary soldiers. Today we have an all volunteer (professional?) armed forces. Everyone who enters the armed forces today does so because they want to be in the military. That wasn't so in the past so is it any wonder that many returning vets seek out a quasi military occupation?

WestonDon wrote:Everyone who enters the armed forces today does so because they want to be in the military. That wasn't so in the past so is it any wonder that many returning vets seek out a quasi military occupation?

I don't know. With so many different MOS in today's military, many people might be enlisting just for the highly marketable job skills acquired through military training. Which is to say that I don't think the personnel working with sophisticated electronics, or aircraft mechanics etc. are ending up getting hired on as police officers. More likely it is that the "unskilled laborers" ie. the infantry or "grunts" are the ones applying for jobs as police officers. We all know what their simple role is - and that is why I question if they are really the best people to work in civilian law enforcement.

glocksmith wrote:

WestonDon wrote:Everyone who enters the armed forces today does so because they want to be in the military. That wasn't so in the past so is it any wonder that many returning vets seek out a quasi military occupation?

I don't know. With so many different MOS in today's military, many people might be enlisting just for the highly marketable job skills acquired through military training. Which is to say that I don't think the personnel working with sophisticated electronics, or aircraft mechanics etc. are ending up getting hired on as police officers. More likely it is that the "unskilled laborers" ie. the infantry or "grunts" are the ones applying for jobs as police officers. We all know what their simple role is - and that is why I question if they are really the best people to work in civilian law enforcement.

Actually, many served in the military police, which would seem to be "the highly marketable job skills acquired through military training" to which you are referring.

Yeah, but as you know, the military and civilian worlds are vastly different from one another. I don't see an MP making a smooth transition to civilian policing...without bringing along "baggage".