quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
And Richard Jewell, who acted as heroically as anyone could've in his position, and who could have helped solve the crime if the investigators didn't have their heads up their asses, had his life destroyed.

Been watching the anthrax investigation lately, Sendec? I would argue that "remote" doesn't have a legitimate place in your post.

By the way, why do so many authorities resort to insults like "moral cowards" when people don't simply kowtow and surrender their rights and dignity every time a cop decides it would be convenient if they did? Is that a recognized law enforcement tactic or something?

What happened to Richard Jewel was wrong and he deserved every cent of compensation he received for it. Does this rationalize not cooperating with the police on every other investigation? Of course not.

The Anthrax Investigation was ultimately cleared because there were citizens who assisted law enforcement to properly identify the suspect, who killed himself when he knew an arrest was going to occur.

Is it "kowtowing and surrendering rights" to the government, by actively assisting the police investigating a double murder? The founders of this country would be rolling over in their graves to hear that. They recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right, but something that worked for the common good. The militias that fought against the English did so because they had a mutual need for self-defense and placed their lives at stake for the community. Posters here hiding behind their "constitutional rights" remind me of those "patriots" who would have hidden in their homes, relying on others to risk their lives for them.

Calling someone a "moral coward" isn't a "law enforcement tactic!" (Those sneaky cops will do anything to trick us poor gunowners! They probably killed those girls, just to get gun info so they could seize them later! ) Give me a break. Two girls were killed. The leads are few or non-existent and the officers charged with the investigation are asking for help from members of the community- in this case a few owners of .40 S&W caliber pistols. They're not booting down any doors. They're looking for leads to someone who killed two kids. Do you have to help them? No. But sometimes being a responsible member of your neighborhood means doing more than just filing your income tax papers once a year. Sorry for the inconvenience.

There have been a lot more LE screwups that made the news than the two I cited. There are still - according to the FBI - a bunch of gaps in the case against the anthrax scientist that commited suicide that the FBI simply cannot fill. And cops will certainly resort to threats, insults and accusations of cowardice when they think doing so will get them cooperation they're not legally entitled to.

Why do you guys thinks so many people, including so many people on this forum that one would rationally expect to be pro-law enforcement, do not trust cops in general? Why do you think good people, people who should have nothing to fear from the cops, avoid the cops if they possibly can? It's not like it's a cultural thing for everyone in the US, or even for most people in the US.

If cops want to get the community more involved in solving crimes, they really do need to look at the way they do their jobs and the way they think about the rest of us.

And Pulicords, I haven't gone off on you with a bunch of BS. The things I've talked about do happen, and happen 'way too often. Putting words in my mouth ("they probably shot those two girls, too!") is garbage. I'll be happy to tell you what's in my head - I decline to take responsibility for your imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Why do you guys thinks so many people, including so many people on this forum that one would rationally expect to be pro-law enforcement, do not trust cops in general? Why do you think good people, people who should have nothing to fear from the cops, avoid the cops if they possibly can? It's not like it's a cultural thing for everyone in the US, or even for most people in the US.

If cops want to get the community more involved in solving crimes, they really do need to look at the way they do their jobs and the way they think about the rest of us.

And Pulicords, I haven't gone off on you with a bunch of BS. The things I've talked about do happen, and happen 'way too often. Putting words in my mouth ("they probably shot those two girls, too!") is garbage. I'll be happy to tell you what's in my head - I decline to take responsibility for your imagination.

Il Cattivo- Those words were not directed at you. Too many posters here have an aversion to the police for no better reason than they read bad things about them in the "regular" media. The same media that is slammed here for it's bias in reporting on firearms related crime, does it's thing on cops.

The vast majority of cops do their job they way you want them to and depend on the cooperation of the people they work for. But you wouldn't know it, the way many use the "I heard from Joe that his second cousin's brother in law's kid, got pulled over for no reason!"

LE will have screw-ups as long as they hire from the human race. In every occupation, there are lazy people, corrupt people, people who just scheme to get ahead. But at least in this profession, the standards are higher than those for lawyers, politicians and damn near any other occupation you'd care to mention. The only cases without "gaps" are those portrayed in faction. Part of the reason I bother to write these responses is so people can have a realistic view about how law enforcement is done. It ain't "CSI", or any of those other BS programs.

If you'd view those reporting on the evil of cops, as critically as the cops view themselves, you'd probably have more faith in the system. I mention these things not because I was a cop (retired now), but because I'm as much as a citizen as you and want to see good police work done and good people drawn to the career. It isn't easy when every time a cop screws up in Southeast Bumfuck (or NY or CA, or where ever), it's broadcast nationwide as the "norm." I defend cops and the profession of policing no less vigorously than I defend the right to keep and bear arms, even there are those who want to color gunowners with the same broadbrush they use to paint cops.

Disagree with me if you want Il Cattivo, it's your right to do so. Just don't let your own prejudices prevent you from doing the right thing from your neighborhood and family, if the police ask for your help.

Edited for another post.

Pulicords, I don't trust the mainstream media any more, I suspect, than you do. I'm not predjudiced against cops. Based on what I've seen cops do, the stories I hear from people I know well and whose judgement and honesty I have plenty of good reason to trust, and the stories I've heard from LEOs themselves, I know there's a substantial number of bad apples with badges out there. As has been pointed out in another thread, there's no way to simply look and tell the good cops from the bad cops.

I cooperate with law enforcement, support cops and the job they do in the conversations I have with people, and vote for both funding for cops and politicians who support cops. But with the bad cops out there it makes sense to keep cops at arm's length until I know them. It also makes sense to be as jealous of my, and others', civil liberties as all get out. It's also true that slippery slopes exist all over the place, with the distinction between "voluntary" and "mandatory" being at the top of the list. As a Californian (based on my having lived for ten years in the Bay Area), you of all people should understand that.

Cops, even good cops, will simply decide they're entitled to what they want because they're cops - whether it's cooperation, access or deference. The rest of us can't allow that unless we want to accept that cops no longer work for us and we work for cops. That's happened over and over with just about every agency at every level of government in the country.

Cops, even good cops, will miss things, make the wrong assumptions, or decide that at the end of a long shift they simply can't be bothered to take the extra step to ensure they're right. Then we get to worry about prosecutors screwing up, having an agenda (like getting more funding, getting elected, etc.), or simply being tired and overworked. Then we get to worry about the same factors being involved with judges. One problem at any one of those levels can leave perfectly innocent people with destroyed lives.

That ain't predjudice. It's knowing there are all to many reasons to act prudently and cautiously. And bad apples with badges, or even good cops who don't stop and think twice, simply give good people all too many prefectly valid reasons to not trust the system or anyone who's part of it.

And, yeah, that doesn't even get into the problems I think exist with the methodology of what the cops in Oklahoma are doing here. Other posters on this thread have mentioned the ones that struck me.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
If a person owns a weapon of the same type used in a crime and chooses not to participate, they are certainly within their rights, but they cannot very well bitch and whine about remaining in the un-cleared category.

Since when does a suspect or accused have to prove innocence? You think I did it, prove it.

Did every cop with a .40 get his gun tested as well?

it appears that Sendec presumes that everyone is guilty until proven innocent...

somehow that just doesn't sound right

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig: It is not my legal or moral responsibility to prove to authorities that I am innocent.

You are correct. You don't have any legal or moral obligation to assist with the investigation, any more than your neighbor has a legal or moral obligation to call the fire department if he sees your house burning and you're not home. I'm sure upon your return, you'd completely agree with his reasoning and support his right to not get involved.

Apples and oranges dude. I do believe if I see my neighbor's house on fire that I have a moral (and possibly legal) obligation to call 911. But, I have no obligation to voluntarily let fire investigators poke around my home seeing if I have some of the same chemical that they found used by an arsonist on my neighbor's house.

Very big difference.

Furthermore, it isn't simply providing my gun for ballistics comparison. I do not trust officials will end it there. I do believe that officials will keep the data, including my name, gun type, gun serial number, and ballistics information. I am now part of a gun registry. And that is the big practical problem. That is why they don't get my dna, fingerprints, or gun info. It will go into a database, and that is wrong.

You keep arguing that this type of request will solve crimes. It is extremely unlikely. The cost is very high to achieve this extremely low probability of solving a crime.

The slippery slope is always a concern. In this situation, I believe it is an immediate concern.

*GASP* (Shocked look added for emphasis) The police do this type of police work? Fact of the matter is that they do, and have FOREVER. My first run in with this type of thing was in 1989 when I lived in NC. ATF was looking for a specific type of pistol. They called the manufacturer, the manufacturer provided the local distributors, to the FFLs and out to the end users. I cooperated. The world didn't come to an end as we know it. The sky didn't fall. Rivers didn't run backwards. The Agent was polite and curteous.

I think the only thing I take issue with here is the thought of blanket warrants being issued for the other 15 or so gunowners that didn't show up. I'm guessing actually what OSBI did was use this as a mechanism for a process of ellimination, not so much a ballistic match. Show up for a ballistic test, you probably didn't do it.

If blanket warrants are issued for the other 15 gun owners, blame the Judge more than the police. I don't think that simply owning a pistol similar in nature to the gun used in the crimes constitutes more likely than not the gun was used in the crime. Without other relevant information such as the owner knowing the victims well, having prior similar criminal history (which most likely procludes them from owning a pistol) or being seen near the scene of the crime. Owning a gun alone is not probable cause.

The results of the ballistics tests performed will most likely stay with the OSBI case file, not forwarded to some super secret black office of the sub government.

This stuff goes on all the time, apparently its the first time it has hit print. And the world as we know hasn't come to an end yet.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
If a person owns a weapon of the same type used in a crime and chooses not to participate, they are certainly within their rights, but they cannot very well bitch and whine about remaining in the un-cleared category.

Since when does a suspect or accused have to prove innocence? You think I did it, prove it.

Did every cop with a .40 get his gun tested as well?

Do you not have any idea that many, many agencies keep bullets fired from every service gun on file? They are used constantly in the course of officer involved shootings to figure out who shot who. And if the agency doesn't do that, they probably did take rounds from officer's guns, if for no other reason than to head off BS allegations like this as a PR move. And lastly, if a cop was a suspect, do you really think it would be that hard to get a sample round? For one thing, investigators could go to the fucking police department range and pull bullets out of the backstop and sort them for a match. And if that didn't work, and they thought a cop did it, the investigators could just have him ordered to turn the gun in for examination. Really, do you not know this kinda stuff, yet you are willing to criticize the investigative tactics they are using. Really? Seriously, this is Detective 101 level stuff here.

No one is requiring you to do anything. No one is requiring you to prove you are innocent. The police are asking people to voluntarily contribute to a ballistic database so that those weapons can be ruled out as being involved. No need for drama queenery.

What conceit - the idea that while investigating a double murder, that the police have nothing better to do than to make your life difficult - it isn't about you, bungclamp, so either help, or shut up and get out of the way of those trying to.

"Why do you guys thinks so many people, including so many people on this forum that one would rationally expect to be pro-law enforcement, do not trust cops in general?"

I dont think "so many" people do not trust the police - I think that there are a lot of, um, "misguided" people who generate far more heat than light based on stereotype and a general misconception of police work. If I want to find people who don't trust the police, I can walk fifty feet out the station door and ask the hippies demonstrating against the war if they trust the police, or run down the road and ask the people in the jail if they trust the police. Go ahead, don't trust us, and enjoy the company. But when we go out to the towns and villages and hold community meetings and actually have a chance to talk to people, they seem to trust us just fine, and we do likewise. On the other hand, we make covenient boogeymen and boogeywomen for people who either have an agenda, or who choose not to learn what's really going on.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Do you not have any idea that many, many agencies keep bullets fired from every service gun on file? They are used constantly in the course of officer involved shootings to figure out who shot who.

Are they checked against every unresolved SHOOTING? $5 says no.

Were the results of this "voluntary" ballistics check tossed out after it was determined that none of the guns had done the shooting? $5 says "no" again, and $5 more sys they WILL be checked against every unsolved shooting with a .40, past and future, in Oklahoma.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
On the other hand, we make covenient boogeymen and boogeywomen for people who either have an agenda, or who choose not to learn what's really going on.

Tell us, Officer Sendec, what "really is going on"?

I'm an honorably retired Soldier who put his ass on the line in two wars to fulfill my oath and defend the Constitution against all enemies. What's my agenda?

Incidentally, you are aware that police officers who abuse their power ARE considered domestic enemies of the Constitution, right?

Not all officers are bad, or even most. The problem is you can't tell which is which until it is too late.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Pullicord - That's a great book, and I considered citing the Pitchfork case here, but really, what's the point? People will look for any reason to cry foul, even if it develops exculpatory evidence that rules them out of the suspect pool by the process of elimination. If a person owns a weapon of the same type used in a crime and chooses not to participate, they are certainly within their rights, but they cannot very well bitch and whine about remaining in the un-cleared category.

Following this inept investigative tactic to its logical conclusion, every law enforcemnt officer in the area that carries a .40 remains in the "un-cleared" category. I'll bet none of them are losing sleep over being uncleared. Come to think of it, I own several pistols chambered in .40, I am seriously uncleared!

If I were the parents of either of these two children I would be disturbed by the fact that the lead investigative agency is displaying an ineptitude rivaled only by the performance of the New Orleans PD during Katrina.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:

If I want to find people who don't trust the police, I can walk fifty feet out the station door and ask the hippies demonstrating against the war if they trust the police, or run down the road and ask the people in the jail if they trust the police. Go ahead, don't trust us, and enjoy the company.

Oh, so you're lumping us with the unwashed hippies and criminals, now? Maybe a reason many of us have a lingering distrust of LEOs is because of apparent attitudes like yours, implying that 'innocent' citizens have nothing to fear from police so they should do anything and everything the police ask/direct/order, and that ANY police tactic is fine and dandy and that nothing is out of bounds, and our concern over loss of our Constitutional rights is misplaced. This 'Police State' attitude expressed by a minority of LEOs reflects poorly on the majority and makes We, The People nervous.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Oh, so you're lumping us with the unwashed hippies and criminals, now?

You certainly don't have any issues in lumping us with the fascists and jack-booted thugs, so suck it up, bitch.

And you still haven't offered one iota of an explanation, however bullshit it will be, as to how asking people to voluntarily give a ballistic sample somehow impinges on the Constitution. Go ahead, it's the internet, you can lie or offer up any bullshit you want.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Do you not have any idea that many, many agencies keep bullets fired from every service gun on file? They are used constantly in the course of officer involved shootings to figure out who shot who.

Are they checked against every unresolved SHOOTING? $5 says no.

Were the results of this "voluntary" ballistics check tossed out after it was determined that none of the guns had done the shooting? $5 says "no" again, and $5 more sys they WILL be checked against every unsolved shooting with a .40, past and future, in Oklahoma.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
On the other hand, we make covenient boogeymen and boogeywomen for people who either have an agenda, or who choose not to learn what's really going on.

Tell us, Officer Sendec, what "really is going on"?

I'm an honorably retired Soldier who put his ass on the line in two wars to fulfill my oath and defend the Constitution against all enemies. What's my agenda?

Incidentally, you are aware that police officers who abuse their power ARE considered domestic enemies of the Constitution, right?

Not all officers are bad, or even most. The problem is you can't tell which is which until it is too late.

I understand that you have a great depth and breadth of knowledge about forensic science and criminal investigation, garnered by countless hours of "CSI" and "Murder She Wrote," but you really don't want to know "what's going on" because it might upset your warped view of the world. You can keep jacking your jaw, or you could actually push yourself away from the computer and go to your citizen's police academy, or read your local agencies' annual report or sit through a crime and society class at your local college, but it's no doubt a litlle bit harder to bloviate when you are actually face to face with a reality that doesn't match your prejudices. Go ahead, it shouldn't be too hard for a bona fide war hero such as yourself.

Speaking of Tim McVeigh, didn't he serve in one war, and take the same oath? You are aware of that, right?

quote:

And you still haven't offered one iota of an explanation, however bullshit it will be, as to how asking people to voluntarily give a ballistic sample somehow impinges on the Constitution. Go ahead, it's the internet, you can lie or offer up any bullshit you want.

The asking for volunteers isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is the fact that it isn't truly voluntary because there's a chance they'll (either themselves or via the media) run your good name through the mud if you don't volunteer, thereby making it more coerced than voluntary.

The only "crime" you know those who didn't volunteer are guilty of is knowing and protecting their rights, yet they are all going to be treated like criminals, at least for a bit until someone is satisfied that's not the case. That's what I have the problem with.

quote:

You certainly don't have any issues in lumping us with the fascists and jack-booted thugs, so suck it up, bitch.

In your case I'd say "if the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it".

So it actually doesn't infringe on the Constitution at all, does it, and you are essentially afraid of something that there's a "chance" of, however slight that may be. Are you afraid of many things of which there are an unquantified "chance" of happening?

Exactly how are they going to be treated like criminals? Are they going to be arrested? Will there right to counsel be abrogated? Will they be waterboarded?

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
So it actually doesn't infringe on the Constitution at all, does it, and you are essentially afraid of something that there's a "chance" of, however slight that may be. Are you afraid of many things of which there are an unquantified "chance" of happening?

It depends on just how voluntary the volunteering happens to be.

If people are coerced into volunteering by whatever method, that doesn't seem quite right to me. I honestly wonder how many of these people in this case "volunteered" because they thought it was the right thing to do versus how many "volunteered" because of all the other instances they've seen where people are ran through the ringer in the media, for no good reason. It doesn't sound all that Constitutional to coerce people into what amounts into potentially testifying against themselves via this and the follow up with those who think the thing is a farce and don't wish to do so.

Another one of the big hitters on the list of why I don't like this is how it doesn't take into account any of the other ways in which a firearm can be aquired, and only picks on presumably law abiding citizens who presumably passed muster to be able to get a transfer through an FFL.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:

You certainly don't have any issues in lumping us with the fascists and jack-booted thugs, so suck it up, bitch.

I bow to your superior logic and reason. What can I possible post that will come close to equalling 'suck it up, bitch'? Winston Churchill would be so envious of such great wit and wisdom.

BTW, this is exactly the attitude problem I was talking about earlier. . .

quote:

Speaking of Tim McVeigh, didn't he serve in one war, and take the same oath? You are aware of that, right?

That's even better - imply that an Army veteran who has served his country honorably deserves to be lumped together with that domestic-terrorist-piece-of-trash murderer. You would be screaming like a little schoolgirl if we posted a big list of all cops who have gone bad.

You are just proving our point.

If a vet was a CID, OSI or NCIS agent I'd be thrilled to hear what they have to say, otherwise they are no more qualified to evaluate a homicide investigation than I am to evaluate armor tactics. Pulling the "honorable service" line is bush league - it doesn't make anyone an expert in something they don't know jack shit about and is an insult to those vets who actually did, and do LE work.. Hell, I've seen "Patton" at least a dozen times, does that make me some military expert? I've even read books about war. Do you want my opinion on military issues? I didn't think so, nor do I think I'm qualified to give them

And you, what's your claim to fame? Why the fuck should we value your opinion? Just because you've got one? Greeaaat, you've got an asshole, too. Are you gonna subject us to that?