PDA

View Full Version : DAMMIT BWIESE! STOP TEASING!


CavTrooper
05-26-2009, 1:07 PM
You say in another thread...

You mean like the way some LAPD & other SoCal LEOs forged their AW letters to the DOJ? :)

No, I'm specifically talking about the "Department letter" signed by the Chief (or his authorized minion) an LEO is required to get to get an LEO AW registration.

If you pull some of the DOJ LEO AW regs, there won't be a matching letter in the agency's system :) Someone'll say "it got lost" but if people are deposed that supposedly signed those letters the truth will come out. (Or the signatures won't match if the supposed authorized signer "cannot recollect".)

Now, we all know you have SOMETHING that leads you to make these sort of statements, but what we dont know is if you are compiling this information to use in an attack against those who would subject us to their unconstitutional laws or if you are simply holding on to it to use at a later date as a bargining chip?

If there is information that could lead to the destruction of the AW laws in this state, how long is it going to be withheld at and what point will it be revealed?

Is it a back-up plan?

A hip-pocket play?

A "just in case" situation?

Or are you working on something that will eventually result in positive movement for the cause?

I understand the need to be tactical and waiting for the "right" situation, however I do not understand keeping information of CRIMINAL ACTIVITES a secret just because the perps happen to be LEOs. I would hope we were working towards the law applying equally to all.

jamesob
05-26-2009, 1:12 PM
LOL, like he will tell you if something is in the works.

CavTrooper
05-26-2009, 1:16 PM
LOL, like he will tell you if something is in the works.

I know... I know... :mad:

It pisses me off to know there are people who have commited multiple crimes in obtaining AWs walking the streets with guns and badges ready to violate yours or my rights at any moment. I want these jerk-offs prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

CaliforniaCarry
05-26-2009, 1:17 PM
Dude, chill.

There are more strategic reasons to keep things under wraps than "just because the perps happen to be LEOs".

bwiese
05-26-2009, 1:26 PM
Cops in various areas have a variety of AW issues:



Uninformed/stupid cops who think they're exempt from AW reg & possess unreg'd AWs;



Cops asserting 'brass pass' who know it's illegal and continue to possess unreg'd AW
because they think they won't be busted (and who have bragged about it to numerous
folks - esp unwise with Roberti-Roos guns that are traceable back to 4473s etc and
which can't have a BB or MMG installed quickly)



Cops who got LEO AW reg dept letters with forged chief's signature



Cops who got their their LEO AW reg dept letters signed by someone who would sign them
and who really didn't have "power of chief's signature" . [This could be result less of fraud
than misunderstanding/misinterpretation.]
Cops who build new personal AWs from OLLs in their patrol carsin FFL parking lots (with
multiple witnesses) and who remove BB/MMG and install regular AR15 parts.



One or more of above.


Unfortunately the most immediately fruitful, most-"we'll run with it" areas right now are areas where there's a "good DA" and/or city attorney and no gun troubles.

This is not really about cops that much: it's more about DAs and Brady v Maryland situation, and was pre-Nordyke. Cops that get burned may be given an 'out' by a judge and a rapid LEO AW dept letter filed with DOJ.

This may not be as necessary now, but I don't want to let our gunpowder get wet because it could be very useful if some OLL cases perhaps went sideways and we need to go to Mutual Assured Destruction mode.

Think about it: one cop shown to have an illegal AW for an extended period of time - whether or not he's charged/convicted of it - has committed felonious conduct which taints all cases he's touched (arrest, investigated, witnessed, etc.) during that period. Some fair fraction of those cases may well be tightly associated with 'officer credibility' and defense is entitled to know about officer illegal conduct in that period. Now, think about DA budget vs. number and cost of retrials or even the expense of trying to fight this ;)

Nessal
05-26-2009, 1:26 PM
He already released too much info. Let it die already.

bwiese
05-26-2009, 1:36 PM
He already released too much info. Let it die already.

No that's fine, no need to secure the concept.

CavTrooper
05-26-2009, 1:38 PM
Think about it: one cop shown to have an illegal AW for an extended period of time - whether or not he's charged/convicted of it - has committed felonious conduct which taints all cases he's touched (arrest, investigated, witnessed, etc.) during that period. Some fair fraction of those cases may well be tightly associated with 'officer credibility' and defense is entitled to know about officer illegal conduct. Think about DA budget vs. number and cost of retrials ;)

So until that time, they benfit from their status as LEOs by skating on criminal charges? What if the time never comes where a DA needs some sort of convincing, do these LEOs continue to walk free having commited possibly multiple felonies?

These officers who obviously have no regard for the law are ticking timebombs with a badge! How are you going to react after one of these criminals commits another heinous act like rape, murder, spousal or child abuse, knowing that you could have taken him off the street a long time ago?

These men are criminals! Criminals need to be behind bars!

(preferably in general population and annouced as former LEOs)

bwiese
05-26-2009, 1:42 PM
So until that time, they benfit from their status as LEOs by skating on criminal charges? What if the time never comes where a DA needs some sort of convincing, do these LEOs continue to walk free having commited possibly multiple felonies?

These officers who obviously have no regard for the law are ticking timebombs with a badge! How are you going to react after one of these criminals commits another heinous act like rape, murder, spousal or child abuse, knowing that you could have taken him off the street a long time ago?


My focus is using this as a politico-legal tactic to help us regain our rights, though Nordkye-based incorporation is likely preferable path. This also may help defend via cross-fire against some BS gun cases that we don't manage to kill immediately.

I agree that cops should follow the law. What will happen here though in metro areas is a quick "make up" with judge staying decision until reg goes thru, and the chief will sign the letter just to 'clean things up'. [Forged letters may be a separate case.] Nevertheless, that does not erase the cops' period of illegal possession (even if uncharged and/or unconvicted!) and that could be used to trigger mass retrials via Brady.

PIRATE14
05-26-2009, 1:44 PM
So until that time, they benfit from their status as LEOs by skating on criminal charges? What if the time never comes where a DA needs some sort of convincing, do these LEOs continue to walk free having commited possibly multiple felonies?

These officers who obviously have no regard for the law are ticking timebombs with a badge! How are you going to react after one of these criminals commits another heinous act like rape, murder, spousal or child abuse, knowing that you could have taken him off the street a long time ago?

These men are criminals! Criminals need to be behind bars!

(preferably in general population and annouced as former LEOs)

Easy cowboy.....

CavTrooper
05-26-2009, 1:46 PM
My focus is using this as a politico-legal tactic to help us regain our rights, though Nordkye-based incorporation is likely preferable path. This also may help defend via cross-fire against some BS gun cases that we don't manage to kill immediately.

I agree that cops should follow the law. What will happen here though in metro areas is a quick "make up" with judge staying decision until reg goes thru, and the chief will sign the letter just to 'clean things up'. [Forged letters may be a separate case.] Nevertheless, that does not erase the cops' period of illegal possession (even if uncharged and/or unconvicted!) and that could be used to trigger mass retrials via Brady.

So its clear, and in simple terms:

Cops get away with crimes because they are cops.

Is that about the gist of it?

bwiese
05-26-2009, 1:50 PM
So its clear, and in simple terms:

Cops get away with crimes because they are cops.

Is that about the gist of it?

Yup. It's just that it has such nice costly side-effects for DA offices that it becomes very useful to us (especially pre-Nordyke)

It's true that in some areas it could be prosecuted/convitced, who knows.

Also, the forgery issues would be significant separate from AW matters.

wash
05-26-2009, 2:14 PM
I hope this never comes up beside a behind the scenes leverage against da's.

The cops doing this are probably no worse than your average citizen that wants an AR the way Eugene Stoner intended. The only difference is that they can get away with it.

I will be very happy to see this issue just disappear when the CA "AW" ban gets struck down.

CHS
05-26-2009, 2:24 PM
So its clear, and in simple terms:

Cops get away with crimes because they are cops.

Is that about the gist of it?

This is a new concept to you?

bwiese
05-26-2009, 2:53 PM
I hope this never comes up beside a behind the scenes leverage against da's.

The cops doing this are probably no worse than your average citizen that wants an AR the way Eugene Stoner intended.

It appears a few of these scumbuckets have popped people for AW charges in the past.

wash
05-26-2009, 3:10 PM
Well, then the question is was it an AW and did they have it coming?

From what I understand the police love to pile on charges when they catch a real scumbag.

I don't have a problem with that. I would have a problem if they busted a guy during a traffic stop on an AW charge if he had a legally built fixed mag or featureless OLL rifle.

Do we have a problem?

DDT
05-26-2009, 3:19 PM
Well, then the question is was it an AW and did they have it coming?

From what I understand the police love to pile on charges when they catch a real scumbag.

I don't have a problem with that. I would have a problem if they busted a guy during a traffic stop on an AW charge if he had a legally built fixed mag or featureless OLL rifle.

Do we have a problem?

The problem is that the same people who are popping a non-LEO are violating the same law they are arresting the citizenry for.

The fact that this doesn't bother you is very worrisome. Do you feel the police should have special rights to break certain laws while arresting people for the same violation?

anthonyca
05-26-2009, 3:22 PM
Well, then the question is was it an AW and did they have it coming?

From what I understand the police love to pile on charges when they catch a real scumbag.

I don't have a problem with that. I would have a problem if they busted a guy during a traffic stop on an AW charge if he had a legally built fixed mag or featureless OLL rifle.

Do we have a problem?

Look at many of the cases GGF has taken. You are describing what happened to people not breaking ANY law.

America has a problem if we let cops get away with breaking the law when they arrest others for the same or no actual law breaking.

KCM222
05-26-2009, 3:29 PM
With how easy it is for a LEO to legally obtain an AW compared to the average Joe, I would have little compassion for someone intentionally breaking the law (the "bad guys") and riding the brass pass.

Those who are just misinformed (and are likely "good guys") are different in my opinion.

I think the delicate part about how to expose this is to keep the good guys on our side and give the bad guys their due.

In addition though, most of that goes out the door when the same LEOs bust someone solely for possession of a legal AW/OLL.

ETA: or soley for the illegal possession of an AW for that matter.

DDT
05-26-2009, 3:30 PM
Those who hold a public trust are burdened with a greater responsibility.

N6ATF
05-26-2009, 3:43 PM
Ignorance is no defense for us, neither should it be anyone in a position of power. Alas, it is pretty much the only defense used by those in power, who pretend to have the IQ of young children to get away with unbelievably heinous stuff.

wash
05-26-2009, 3:54 PM
I can't fault a person for wanting what I want. I can't fault a police officer for doing their job. I can't even fault a police officer for breaking an unconstitutional law because they know that they can get away with it.

What I can fault any of those people for is hypocrisy. If they go out and buy AW's without following the law and then specifically look to bust people on AW charges or bust people on bogus AW charges (proper use of a Prince50, open mag well Bullet button or any other non-AW), that's hypocrisy.

KCM222
05-26-2009, 3:56 PM
I didn't mean to say that I think being ignorant or claiming ignorance should excuse anyone.

What I meant is that I, personally, am not chomping at the bit to prosecute LEOs who truly are ignorant. When it comes down to it, equal protection under the law should always be applied.

I guess you could throw my vote, if it mattered, in the "save this for leverage" camp since I think an exposition could bust a bunch of the good guys.

I will admit that the willful abuse of the "brass pass" does bother a great deal.

KCM222
05-26-2009, 3:57 PM
I can't fault a person for wanting what I want. I can't fault a police officer for doing their job. I can't even fault a police officer for breaking an unconstitutional law because they know that they can get away with it.

What I can fault any of those people for is hypocrisy. If they go out and buy AW's without following the law and then specifically look to bust people on AW charges or bust people on bogus AW charges (proper use of a Prince50, open mag well Bullet button or any other non-AW), that's hypocrisy.

These are good points too and are the other half of what I haven't commented on.

Psy Crow
05-26-2009, 4:25 PM
The problem is that the same people who are popping a non-LEO are violating the same law they are arresting the citizenry for.

The fact that this doesn't bother you is very worrisome. Do you feel the police should have special rights to break certain laws while arresting people for the same violation?

I agree with you in principle, however it appears LEOs already have special rights to break certain laws while arresting people for the same violation.

For example take speeding. How can an officer catch a person speeding (breaking the law) without speeding themselves (breaking the same law)?

GuyW
05-26-2009, 4:28 PM
Are FFLs in possible danger due to selling AWs to LE with bogus letters?

.

bwiese
05-26-2009, 4:35 PM
Are FFLs in possible danger due to selling AWs to LE with bogus letters?

Likely not.

What's good enough for the DOJ BoF should be good for its agents (CA FFLs w/permits.)

(Now if the FFL helped cop to finagle a phony letter, etc. all bets are off since that's facilitating criminal conduct - as opposed to being duped the same way the agency is.)

Sgt Raven
05-26-2009, 5:15 PM
I agree with you in principle, however it appears LEOs already have special rights to break certain laws while arresting people for the same violation.

For example take speeding. How can an officer catch a person speeding (breaking the law) without speeding themselves (breaking the same law)?

There is a difference between officers breaking a law (speeding) while in the performance of their duties, and them breaking the law on their own time.:rolleyes:

SJgunguy24
05-26-2009, 6:08 PM
i'll chime in on this. My opinion is the Police have a job to do. They are held to a higher standard then us. It's their job to know and understand the laws.

I know there are way too many laws for 1 person to know and understand completly. My issue is when they know the law and still break it, thats plain wrong. The cop who has few beers and jumps in the car, the cop who's had a bad day at work and smacks his wife. The cop whos 16 Y.O. son grow a pair and stands up to him and get smacked down. 99 times out of 100 that same cop will arrest you and take you to jail, talking s*** the whole time.

I can't stand this kind of person, cop or no cop. I was at metcalf and I had a Santa Cruz S.O. ask me about my AK. I told him how it's legal and why I went with that type of build. Well he told me about his WASR, and AR that were both cash and carry on department letterhead. I asked if they are registered.........."um no.......why, i'm a cop"

"Um.....your a felon" I said. Well his attitude was he'll never get caught cause his "Boys" would never do that.:mad:

I support the men and women in blue, but this attitude has to come to an end.

SubstanceP
05-26-2009, 6:15 PM
It appears a few of these scumbuckets have popped people for AW charges in the past.

Now that makes me mad.

socal2310
05-26-2009, 10:12 PM
I agree with you in principle, however it appears LEOs already have special rights to break certain laws while arresting people for the same violation.

For example take speeding. How can an officer catch a person speeding (breaking the law) without speeding themselves (breaking the same law)?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The P.C. specifically exempts police from the consequences associated with violating certain laws (the same way the P.C. specifically exempts you from the legal consequences normally associated with intentionally killing someone, if you act in self defense) when those laws unreasonably* interfere with the performance of their duties; but, as has been brought up repeatedly on multiple threads: there is no such exemption for AW's.

A more apt comparison would be the CHP officer who cruises along at ninety on the freeway (sans lights and siren) and then busts a BMW for driving eighty-five.

Ryan

*It wouldn't be reasonable to force a police officer to observe the speed limit when trying to stop someone in violation of it; it wouldn't be reasonable to demand that you not shoot someone who is trying to kill you.

AJAX22
05-27-2009, 5:14 AM
Well I guess we know the answer to: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A: Bweiss and the boys at the foundation

7x57
05-27-2009, 7:44 AM
Well I guess we know the answer to: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A: Bweiss and the boys at the foundation

Nice. :thumbsup:

7x57

turbosbox
05-27-2009, 8:02 AM
there are MUCH better uses of resources and energy these days than "going after" cops in general. cr@ppy laws, politicians, and criminals for example. not to mention things like the economy, banking and large companies, and nuclear proliferation and threats via north Korea.

I would much prefer my area enforcement agent was working on arresting an illegal alien who has been robbing places, then a cop with an unregistered assault weapon. but to each his own i guess.

CHS
05-27-2009, 10:17 AM
there are MUCH better uses of resources and energy these days than "going after" cops in general. cr@ppy laws, politicians, and criminals for example. not to mention things like the economy, banking and large companies, and nuclear proliferation and threats via north Korea.

I would much prefer my area enforcement agent was working on arresting an illegal alien who has been robbing places, then a cop with an unregistered assault weapon. but to each his own i guess.

You do realize that what you're saying right here is that you don't want a challenge to the AW laws, and you don't want to own any "AW's" in CA any time.

Please, read between the lines. It's helpful.

KCM222
05-27-2009, 10:29 AM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches the watchers?

ETA: NVM, Google'd it: "Who will guard the guards themselves?". Get 'em Bill (and CGF).

turbosbox
05-27-2009, 3:36 PM
You do realize that what you're saying right here is that you don't want a challenge to the AW laws, and you don't want to own any "AW's" in CA any time.

Please, read between the lines. It's helpful.

no, that was not the context. the OP and others would like to have the individual violators chased down and attempts to prosecute.
It has been stated for quite some time, again and again, the individuals doing it could be useful in overturning the law, and chasing them down was not the intent. remember that poll asking for info on LEOs with AW's, with out any names or identifying info, as that was not the intent of gathering that info?

Maybe I forgot to mention we want to change the law(s) in my post?
if you have been reading through the threads, going after the individuals is NOT the way to do that.
some folks have an axe to grind against LEO's in general that is not really helpful to most of our goals of less restrictive gun laws.

bwiese
05-27-2009, 4:04 PM
no, that was not the context. the OP and others would like to have the individual violators chased down and attempts to prosecute. It has been stated for quite some time, again and again, the individuals doing it could be useful in overturning the law, and chasing them down was not the intent. remember that poll asking for info on LEOs with AW's, with out any names or identifying info, as that was not the intent of gathering that info?


I detect a copcrime sympathizer/apologist. Or a cop that has buddies with illegal AWs. When I first posted the request my email box was filled with panicked emails. I bet if I started tracking down IP addresses I'd find even more AWs :)

Nevertheless what you wrote is true in general; I was the one that posted it.

But if I find a specific cop that's bad (esp if he's popped people for OLL/AW violations) and it'll really upset the apple cart,. I will go for it. Quite a bit different than for a poor cop that thought he had an exemption.

And if/when I discover a forged AW letter, I would let those cops swing in the wind. Forgery's a separate crime.

Anyway - aside from the forged letter situations - not much will likely happen to the cop other than some drama, the judge will prob let it slide with deferred AW registration and dept will magically generate a LEO AW letter to clear up the situation. Maybe he gets a nastygram in his personnel file.

After all that is said & done, it still compromises his prior testimony in cases where officer credibility is a significant factor and can trigger DA office budget-busting retrials.

Post-Nordyke this is a bit less necessary, but can be useful in defense bargaining with an OLL-intolerant DA: "Hey you screw my guy, we screw you with Brady and 3 years of retrials." Going after the cop is only an item in the pathway, it's not the end result.

Nevertheless situations like this may improve departmental security in drug/evidence locker matters, since this could well be a security (blackmail) issue. An indebted cop afraid for losing his job, not having skills worth anything in the private sector in a tight job market, could easily be turned & burned. It's happened to FBI & CIA guys (and the Mafia 'owned' much of NYPD for awhile) so why should local yokel cops be, statistically, any more reliable?



Maybe I forgot to mention we want to change the law(s) in my post?
You mean the ones the cops help pass? The ones where all the punks in uniform lined up with the Governor & Lockyer when SB23 was signed?


if you have been reading through the threads, going after the individuals is NOT the way to do that. Generally or broadly true. There are a high amount of exceptions, however.

And if a slough of cops start getting popped we start getting a legislative wedge (if we don't wanna wait for courts).


some folks have an axe to grind against LEO's in general that is not really helpful to most of our goals of less restrictive gun laws.

At this time many PDs are actively antigun, and their personnel are too chicken**** to risk their jobs and end up supporting bad law. (LAPD Gun Unit is prime example.)

Saving a few good cops here who "get it", putting a bit of risk in their diet for laws they condone (actively or passively) can be helpful.

Ultimately the courts are our friends and cops are irrelevant nuisances.

Sgt Raven
05-27-2009, 4:26 PM
I detect a copcrime sympathizer/apologist. Or a cop that has buddies with illegal AWs. When I first posted the request my email box was filled with panicked emails. I bet if I started tracking down IP addresses I'd find even more AWs :)

Nevertheless what you wrote is true in general; I was the one that posted it.

But if I find a specific cop that's bad (esp if he's popped people for OLL/AW violations) and it'll really upset the apple cart,. I will go for it. Quite a bit different than for a poor cop that thought he had an exemption.

And if/when I discover a forged AW letter, I would let those cops swing in the wind. Forgery's a separate crime.

Anyway - aside from the forged letter situations - not much will likely happen to the cop other than some drama, the judge will prob let it slide with deferred AW registration and dept will magically generate a LEO AW letter to clear up the situation. Maybe he gets a nastygram in his personnel file.

After all that is said & done, it still compromises his prior testimony in cases where officer credibility is a significant factor and can trigger DA office budget-busting retrials.

Post-Nordyke this is a bit less necessary, but can be useful in defense bargaining with an OLL-intolerant DA: "Hey you screw my guy, we screw you with Brady and 3 years of retrials." Going after the cop is only an item in the pathway, it's not the end result.

Nevertheless situations like this may improve departmental security in drug/evidence locker matters, since this could well be a security (blackmail) issue. An indebted cop afraid for losing his job, not having skills worth anything in the private sector in a tight job market, could easily be turned & burned. It's happened to FBI & CIA guys (and the Mafia 'owned' much of NYPD for awhile) so why should local yokel cops be, statistically, any more reliable?


You mean the ones the cops help pass? The ones where all the punks in uniform lined up with the Governor & Lockyer when SB23 was signed?


Generally or broadly true. There are a high amount of exceptions, however.

And if a slough of cops start getting popped we start getting a legislative wedge (if we don't wanna wait for courts).




At this time many PDs are actively antigun, and their personnel are too chicken**** to risk their jobs and end up supporting bad law. (LAPD Gun Unit is prime example.)

Saving a few good cops here who "get it", putting a bit of risk in their diet for laws they condone (actively or passively) can be helpful.

Ultimately the courts are our friends and cops are irrelevant nuisances.

Look what happened to Leroy when McNamara went after him for telling it like it really was.

turbosbox
05-27-2009, 5:09 PM
I detect a copcrime sympathizer/apologist. Or a cop that has buddies with illegal AWs.
uh, I choose answer "e."
none of the above.
In fact I don't even have LEO buddies. I might ask rhetorically how many you have. :p :rolleyes:



Ultimately the courts are our friends and cops are irrelevant nuisances.

I choose this as "my final answer". Did I win?

Joking aside, your summary comment, is why I financially support calguns. If I misunderstood the purpose of calguns, and in reality it is to use our donations to go after individual cops because of the principal, I have better things to spend my money on.. more ammo maybe? :D

bwiese
05-27-2009, 7:20 PM
Joking aside, your summary comment, is why I financially support calguns. If I misunderstood the purpose of calguns, and in reality it is to use our donations to go after individual cops because of the principal, I have better things to spend my money on.. more ammo maybe? :D

Um, "Calguns" is supported by ads and the Patient Love Of Kestryll.

"The Calguns Foundation" is a separate effort. If you donated money to The Calguns Foundation, the Board and Calif. gunnies thank you. Something like 95+% (offhand guess, likely more as we have low overhead!) goes to actual litigation.

Now, if you instead donated money to someone asking for contributions Calguns website itself I am sure Kestryll would thank you -- but since he doesn't ever seem to ask for money, we might wanna track down what *really* happened to those funds... :-\

The cops-with-illegal-AWs datagathering effort is mine alone. However, as it may possibly behoove or accelerate resolution of certain cases with problematic DA offices, or cases directly involving problematic cops, I would certainly inform relevant attorneys of useful situations possibly pertaining to a defendant - whether or not that particular case was CGF funded/supported or not.

outersquare
05-27-2009, 9:28 PM
It appears a few of these scumbuckets have popped people for AW charges in the past.

that is an outrage :mad::mad::mad:

CA_Libertarian
05-27-2009, 11:38 PM
I can't fault a person for wanting what I want. I can't fault a police officer for doing their job. I can't even fault a police officer for breaking an unconstitutional law because they know that they can get away with it...

Problem is the cops that enforce unconstitutional laws aren't doing their job. Morally, it's their individual responsibility to uphold their oath. Last time I checked, that includes upholding and defending our constitutionally protected rights. They should be able to discern right from wrong, rather than just "following orders."

wash
05-28-2009, 9:12 AM
I would make a ****ty cop.

I'm not perfect and I don't expect the cops to be either. I almost got held in contempt for that opinion at jury duty once.

DDT
05-28-2009, 10:37 AM
I would make a ****ty cop.

I'm not perfect and I don't expect the cops to be either. I almost got held in contempt for that opinion at jury duty once.

I would have to agree that if you don't believe cops are required to follow the law you would make a ****ty cop.

wash
05-28-2009, 10:49 AM
They are required, but do they always do it?

Are you a cop?

Do you always drive the speed limit?

Have you ever rolled through a stop sign?

Have you ever littered?

I don't trust any one who won't admit that they've ever done anything wrong.

N6ATF
05-28-2009, 11:01 AM
I comply with CVC 22350 by driving at a speed safe for the prevailing conditions - I especially don't impede traffic when all other personal vehicles around me are going 75-80 mph.

I have rolled through stop signs when they have been obscured by foliage the city failed to maintain.

I have not littered since I was a kid. Unless you count crap that stuck to my clothes.

Some Guy
05-28-2009, 3:49 PM
They are required, but do they always do it?

Are you a cop?

Do you always drive the speed limit?

Have you ever rolled through a stop sign?

Have you ever littered?

I don't trust any one who won't admit that they've ever done anything wrong.

No ones perfect, Im not and Ive been cited for it. I dont expect officers to be perfect but the point being if an officer would cite me for speeding, then an off duty officer who is caught speeding should be cited.

lavgrunt
05-28-2009, 5:04 PM
.......The sanctemony and hypocracy this thread has generated is absolutely PRICELESS !!!.........I love CALGUNS !!!!

........Give 'em hell BWIESE !!!