My Chief recently said that he received several phone calls from
citizens who wanted to point out that they saw one of our squad cars
driving in the rain, without having its headlights on. Granted, Illinois law requires that headlights "be used in times when rain, snow, fog or other atmospheric conditions require the use of windshield wipers." I don't know any officers who've actually written someone a ticket for that, and I really have to question what motivates someone to call a suburban police chief to complain about that sort of thing.
I've never understood beefers, the people who like to mind other people's business and then complain.
Don't you have anything better to do?
In October, the Village Board of Northbrook voted to give 70
Beretta handguns (former duty weapons) to the officers who had carried
those guns. The guns were purchased in 1992 and are now worth less
than $100 apiece. The guns have to be replaced, and the other options
are to sell them (and possibly have them re-sold and put back "on the
street") or have them melted down. According to this story,
a small number of people object to the plan. They not only object,
they object so strongly that they felt compelled to take time to go to
a village board meeting and publicly voice their objections (which,
frankly, are ridiculous).
These are not people protesting police brutality, or demanding police service, or responding to some crisis or scandal. No. These activists are people who apparently believe that not even police officers should be allowed to own guns:
Yeah. As a society we can't seem to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so let's just keep them out of the hands of off-duty police officers.
These are not people protesting police brutality, or demanding police service, or responding to some crisis or scandal. No. These activists are people who apparently believe that not even police officers should be allowed to own guns:
"There is some strange notion that handguns are safer in the hands of police officers than anyone," said Northbrook activist Lee Goodman, noting the high stress levels associated with the job. "The question becomes, what happens to all these guns while these officers are on duty? Are they just sitting around?
One critic, Carmen Corbett, of Wilmette, raised the specter of the Fort Hood massacre, where an Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people is believed to have used his personal weapons.
"There are just too many guns proliferating throughout the cities and suburbs," she said.
Yeah. As a society we can't seem to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so let's just keep them out of the hands of off-duty police officers.
12 Comments
irishpirate said:
The word ass HOLE comes to mind. In two syllables.
I know someone who lives near the state border. In his state license plate fees are comparatively high. His soldier son lives in the neighboring state. Son gets deployed and leaves his car in dad's driveway with the out of state plate.
A month or so goes by and he gets a visit from the police because at least one neighbor had been complaining. Dad goes inside and brings out a photo of his son in uniform. Cop apologizes and leaves.
This story happens a few times as the neighbor or other neighbors continue to call and other cops respond.
Some folks just need to chill out.
Moshucat said:
We have a simular problem in Cicero. You can't park in YOUR DRIVEWAY because the town says that is city property. Well a group of us has decided to form a group to get our taxes reduced because all these years we have paid taxes on a driveway that is not ours.
Ther is already a law against letting retired police officers carry weapons..how stupid. Did they become less endangered because they retired? The idiots that come up with stupid stuff should walk in your shoes for a year or so. Then decide if police personnel shouldn't carry guns off duty. OR BETTER STILL G E T A L I F E.
Joe the Cop said:
Mosh, just a little correction--there IS a law that allows police officers in good standing to carry a concealed firearm everywhere in the nation. HR-218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, was enacted in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
Before that there was a crazy collection of varying rules from state to state. It's much easier now to plan a cross-country road trip.
dude said:
Too many gun laws i follow the 2nd amendment.
The only new law i want is the next politician caught stealing public funds gets the electric chair.
Torchboy said:
Back to the original story in your post....Is it wrong for civilians to want to see the people in charge of serving and protecting the citizens to set a good example for others to follow. I myself get sick of watching patrol cars not follow traffic rules. Anything from blown stop signs/lights to illegal U-turns to no lights at night. And I am not talking about at dusk, I am talking about late at night, driving down side streets. I know that many times there is an arguement that it is "official police business" or they are responding to calls but my father-in-law, a former Chicago Police Office said that is all a bunch of bull s**t. Police will use there powers to do what they want. I also know that not every officer is like this but from what I have seen since moving to Chicago...there are a lot. We can't we lead by examble?
ea327 said:
I agree with Torchboy.Most officers don't even bother with turn signals.
akagoldfish said:
I saw an Oak Park police officer violated a yield to pedestrians sign with a couple with small children was trying to cross the street. This was particularly notable, because as I was driving behind the officer I was paying particuler attention to all the cross-walks, not wanting to get pulled over for failing to yield.
I did yield to the couple, who were glad someone finally obeyed the clearly posted yield notice.
Way to uphold the law Officer.
Curmudgeon said:
Perhaps some of those "people who like to mind other people's business" could be transplanted to the high-crime areas of the city, and use their obvious observational skills as well as their interest in making the world a better place to help identify the perpetrators of all those gang murders, drive-by shootings, and so forth.
Wendy C said:
I don't get it. With all the criminals running around with guns, some would complain law enforcement officials specifically trained in the use of firearms shouldn't have them? Please!
Torchboy said:
Don't worry Curmudgeon. I live in a fairly high-crime area and I am always keeping a vigilant eye open for suspicious activity. I think that is our right and responsibility as American citizens. If you saw an individual who was way to drunk to drive, would you not call the police? Or would that be minding other people's business? I just don't understand why some people get frustrated with citizens ask questions or raise concerns. The only way ignorance can be erased is if questions are asked.
akagoldfish said:
What's really interesting about this post, is the more conservative leaning commenters, who would normally take a keen interest in observing how their tax dollars are used or misused, suddenly suggesting citizens should just mind their own business if those tax dollars happen to be going to the police.
akagoldfish said:
In a democracy, a police officer's business is by definition the public's business.
Not withstanding the questionable logic of the people on about the gun-thing, it is incredibly stupid to suggest the public shouldn't take an active interest in the conduct of police officers (or any government official at any level, for that matter). That's one of the most basic duties of citizens in a democracy.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: