Ohio cop arresting concealed carry permit holder...

Leon,

You're right. I am aware of those situations. But even in those cases, those people sitting in what seems like an adult version of detention ( which is a huge waste of their time and the taxpayer's money) are washed up. They will never be able to work again as a teacher. On the applications I've filled out, you are asked if you were ever accused of abuse- never mind arrested or convicted. My friends in admin have told me that automatically blacklists you. I'm all right with that. With the districts that do carry on in a shady manner (usually coastal big-metro), I have no issue with people exposing them for what they are.

The point I was trying to illustrate was there are some offenses in some jobs that pretty much should be deal breakers. That guy in the video would certainly qualify were I the decider
smile.gif
 
I know LEO's have a hard job, maybe if he would have done his job correctly and shut his yapper long enough to either ask him if he was packing or secured him with a pat down that wouldn't have happened. Makes me want to put a P.A. system in my truck so if I get pulled over I can announce it loud and clear. Maybe a dash cam wouldn't hurt either.
 
...how about, if you, the driver had a small tape recorder sitting on your dash, or in a door pocket, that you activated on "RECORD" mode, when you were first pulled over???
Would this be legal, or admissable as evidence, in the event of a charge being filed on the officer?? If it clearly recorded that you had attempted to inform the officer, and he shouted you down, or ignored you???
I know that, in some instances, you are required to inform people that you are recording your conversation, in order for it to be legal.

One minor point about Missouri's CCW law: You can have your CCW status declared on a different "NON-DRIVER" license. I have this ND license, because I have a CDL (Commercial Driver's License) that is renewed every 6 years, and the CCW is renewed every 3 years. My CDL renewal costs $45 to renew, so I would be doubling my expense. Also, I don't really care for every LEO knowing that I have a CCW, knowing that some of them will go all "SWAT-TEAM" radical on me. If I'm carrying, I will inform them, but if not carrying, it's none of their XXXXXXXX business!!!!!

In the past, if stopped, and having a loaded handgun,(before the days of MO's CCW) I have always declared that there is a loaded handgun, and its' location. It was never concealed, but was declared, while I had BOTH hands on the steering wheel. None of the officers ever took issue with this declaration.
 
That's been pretty much my experience as well Savagenut. I have been stopped numerous times in several states for DUI checkpoints, Border Patrol stops, and the like. I normally don't say anything unless asked, but when they ask and I tell them that yes I do have a weapon (and a CCW), the conversation has typically gone something like (with both hands on the steering wheel), "Where is the firearm now sir?" "In a holster on my right side officer (or behind the seat, under the seat, whatever)" "Is it loaded sir?" "Yes of course." "Thank you sir, have a nice evening."

I used to pick up and deliver at a number of federal facilities where it's illegal to carry firearms. I normally had to park and carry my weapon inside the security office where they'd give me a bag and ask me to unload the weapon in front of them, put the pistol and ammo into the bag, and log it in for pick-up on the way back out. I thought that was poor security at first blush, until rethinking it in terms of some idiot wanting to actually confront the half dozen armed Marines in place. Not a bad way to judge a person's nervousness/response.

The only place I've ever had even a hint of trouble is with local cops, and I've always managed to "polite" and "respect" my way out of their attention zone, even though I may have thought they were being overly aggressive Richard craniums. For the most part I've personally found cops to normally be pretty professional, especially fed, state, and sheriffs departments. That may go back to that "lowered standards" thing come to think of it, as I'm pretty sure that even with lowered standards, theirs are probably still a lot higher than "local" standards.

One piece of advice I'd give anyone based on my own experience is never argue your case with the cop on the scene. It's yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, thank you sir. The person to argue your case in front of is the judge.



Brendan, my point wasn't that those teachers wouldn't eventually be fired, it went to the unequal treatment/"professional courtesy" point brought up earlier.

In most "civilian" (and non-union) professions a screw-up proportionally as large as the one that started this thread or the abuse of someone under your care (in the referenced teacher cases) would be responded to with "security will escort you to the gate, and will mail you the personal items from your desk". Your job and your profession would be over with today, now.

The idea that after such offences a person might continue to be paid full salary for two to seven years while a review process is undertaken before their career is (finally) over, is frankly alien to most of us (that's the "most of us" who have to pay for it too). Most of us in the civilian world know that we certainly wouldn't be afforded such accommodation.

By the way, applications for just about any professional job in the civilian world also ask (besides arrests or convictions) have you ever been fired for let go or accused of theft, sexual harassment, incompetence, etc, and the background checks required for many jobs and the certifications required for many jobs ask if you have ever stolen from an employer, cheated, sexually harassed, etc, etc, some for clearances even asking about your childhood. And you had better not lie, lying on a background check for federal certifications or clearances is a felony. Better just to walk out of the room and forget the job/certification/clearance.

Welcome to the "most of us" world.
 
Leon,

I worked in the "most of us " world for far longer than I have taught (20 years in construction). I have no problem with the same rules applying. If they don't, that isn't my fault. Blame it on the unions. In Idaho hardly, any teachers belong to it. At my school, I think there's 4 of them. I know it's hard on the internet to read someone's intentions, but that sounds like a personal jab "welcome to the real world". If I'm wrong, then disregard. If right, then thinking I just fell off the turnip truck is a big assumption. And you know the old addage. So, what's your problem with me?...............
 
Leon,
You left out personal references too. I have actually had friends who I used as references and a neighbor tell me they were visited, with ME as the point of interest, in regards to my background checks.

Everything worked out fine, but they can be thorough.
 
Savage, gotta check your states laws on recording. In NY, as long as one of the people in the conversation (You) knows that it is being recorded you are good to go. The situation you described would be perfectly legal in NY.

I personally could care less if someone tells me if they are carrying during a routine stop. A good citizen is not going to shoot me and a criminal is not going to announce that have a gun before they shoot me. The point is moot.
 
No personal jab at all Brendan, perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote, "In teaching, you only have to be accused of doing something inappropriate and you're pretty much done- if you get my drift." as an example of how some professions (cops) need to be held to higher standards.

That seemed to imply an instant firing, making it sound as though you were seemingly not aware that in most locales it is very expensive and time consuming to fire a teacher for cause (similar to cops).

Then (after I provided you links) you acknowledged that you were in fact aware of "those situations", saying, "You're right. I am aware of those situations. But even in those cases, those people sitting in what seems like an adult version of detention ( which is a huge waste of their time and the taxpayer's money) are washed up. They will never be able to work again as a teacher."

That explanation seemed to be, if not exactly an excuse for the system, something of a justification, to which I replied that, "..my point wasn't that those teachers wouldn't eventually be fired, it went to the unequal treatment/"professional courtesy" point brought up earlier". since your earlier statement seemed to be saying that (at your district at least) teachers would not be afforded the unequal treatment referenced in posts about the cop's story.


You then continued with, "On the applications I've filled out, you are asked if you were ever accused of abuse- never mind arrested or convicted. My friends in admin have told me that automatically blacklists you." which statement seemed to indicate again that you were not personally aware of that automatic blacklisting until to were told by admin, so I responded with real world (the rest of us) facts.

To reiterate, the applications for any professional job have exactly the same questions, and if you were fired from any professional job for (egregious) cause, you would consequently be "blacklisted" from every professional job/certification/clearance because of your answers. If an architect got fired for serious cause, he would not be able to get a job as an architect, engineer, teacher, etc, etc. He would not be able to get any job that required a professional application, or any certification or clearance that required a background check.

The only difference between the architect losing his job, and the norm for (many) public employees losing theirs, is that when he loses his it's today. There is no waiting period (up to seven years) at full pay. In any profession the consequences to being fired for egregious cause are normally that you will have to do something in the future that does not require a professional application, questionnaire, or background check. What your admin failed to tell you was that if you as a teacher were fired for serious cause, you would be blacklisted from all other professional occupations too.

From your statements above, you seemed not to be aware that the immediate consequences of being fired from any other professional job are the same as as are the (eventual) consequences for a teacher (or cop), or that the timetable for a teacher being fired is normally much more akin to a cop being fired than to the firing of those of us in the civilian world. If that's the case, then "welcome to the real world" certainly seems to be appropriate.

If you were already aware that the same relative standards that apply to teachers apply to any professional occupation (only our consequences come more quickly), then perhaps your choice to hold teacher standards up as an example of how cops should be held to higher standards of conduct was just a poor choice of examples.

In any case, my responses were in no way a personal jab towards you and neither have I said or implied that any deficiencies in the system are your fault.




 
Leon,

You're missing my point. My point is that some offenses deserve no second chance. I don't think it's a poor comparison I made at all. I said all you have to do is be accused and you're done. Washed up is washed up. You are the one who decided timely consequences were of the utmost importance. I don't live in your head but it looks to me like you're trying to pick my post apart to make a case that consequences come more quickly in private industry. If you want to go down that road, knock yourself out. But..... if you need to argue, go for it. Neither Steve nor anyone else took issue with it. I know a person trying to start an argument when I see it. If you can't admit it, I don't know what to say. It's not like I'm standin' in front of you.
 
Last edited:
No Brendan, as long as it's civil it stays here in open forum. This is the "church" where heated and contentious (but civil) debate is encouraged. If you can't defend your positions, opinions, statements, on the merits, then perhaps you accidentally stepped through the wrong door on your way to another forum?

You seem still to not be able to comprehend that all professions have essentially the same basic standards and questions on their applications, with a (very) few changes appropriate to the individual profession. To put up the fact that teachers can be (eventually) fired for an accusation of wrongdoing as an example of a profession being held to a higher standard is (at best) an erroneous example.

If that architect is accused of sexual harassment, innappropriate behavior with an underage intern, misappropriation of funds, stealing proprietary documents, etc, etc, he will be fired today and will be "washed up" forever, not only in the architectural field, but in every other professional occupation that uses any sort of professional application, questionnaire or background check (as would the teacher or cop).

Accusations are usually what gets professionals fired for egregious cause. I would have thought that was obvious on the face of it. If it were other than just an accusation, he (or the teacher in your example) wouldn't be worried about being fired, he would be worried about going to jail.


 
Last edited:
I do understand that the "church" is where things can get heated. Defending myself against you isn't too difficult.

I completely understand what you're saying about applications, and the standards that all professions hold (or should hold)for those who are employed by them.

My analogy wasn't a problem at all- except to you. If you don't have the personal integrity to admit that your real issue is with those who work the public sector, then you're not worth debating. You're not stupid. Hyper-argumentative, but not stupid. You know the point I was trying to make.

I was just going over some of your other posts. You like to needle people. Both subtle and overt insults. Just because you're long-winded doesn't make you correct. And my God, you are long-winded. It's like arguing with my wife. If this gets me banned then I honestly don't care.
 
Originally Posted By: Brendan43

I was just going over some of your other posts. You like to needle people. Both subtle and overt insults. Just because you're long-winded doesn't make you correct. And my God, you are long-winded. It's like arguing with my wife. If this gets me banned then I honestly don't care.

A better way to describe most of the ramblings is "verbal vomit".
 
I do understand that the "church" is where things can get heated. Defending myself against you isn't too difficult.

Okay, but it's not not yourself that you need to defend, you are in no way being attacked. It's your statements and assertions that need defense here when questioned, not you. I have yet to see much of that.


My analogy wasn't a problem at all- except to you. If you don't have the personal integrity to admit that your real issue is with those who work the public sector, then you're not worth debating. You're not stupid. Hyper-argumentative, but not stupid.

I do indeed have a problem with public sector unions at a very fundamental level and have no problem "admitting" it (I think of it more as loudly and frequently exposing their basic flaws to anyone who will listen) as all who have frequented this forum for any amount of time over the years know full well, and I have a very huge problem with government education in particular. That does not mean that I have a problem with any individual who is a public sector employee (including teachers), in fact we need public sector employees.

I do take umbrage with my (public sector) employees when they start thinking they are somehow "special", and better than we, their employers (taxpayers) are, whether they are cops or school teachers. They (public sector) are no more "special" than any other profession except that they (collectively) often get special privileges the rest of us (who pay for it) don't.

Is that enough "personal integrity" for you to actually defend your statements Brendan?

By the way, to come to a forum ("the church") that is specifically designed for rigorous debate, and then to call someone "Hyper-argumentative" is pretty laughable, if not actually a compliment.

I was just going over some of your other posts. You like to needle people. Both subtle and overt insults. Just because you're long-winded doesn't make you correct. And my God, you are long-winded.

Thank you, it's flattering when someone does a little bit of research before engaging in debate, but if you'd gone just a little bit deeper, you'd have found that my "needling" and "insults" were responses-in-kind. If you would last long back here you should have the skill to give as good as you get AND to stay within the TOS. As long as it's well reasoned, well sourced, and perspicacious, being "long winded" back here is a plus, not a minus. Broaden your horizons and think Lincoln/Douglas, not MSNBC and 15 second sound bites.



Okay, enough with the fun stuff, now down to business.



You know the point I was trying to make

Did you mean this point?

Steve, I know you're trying to be fair to the guy and give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe in most jobs, that's all right. This is my take on it. Some jobs require a higher standard of self-control and ethical behavior than others- at least they ought to. Take me for example. I'm a teacher. In teaching, you only have to be accused of doing something inappropriate and you're pretty much done- if you get my drift.

Did I understand incorrectly that you were at least implying if not stating explicitly that teaching (in particular) is a job that requires "a higher standard of self-control and ethical behavior" than "most jobs"? I believe I've debunked that idea already (with no counterpoint forthcoming).

Or did you mean this point:

You're missing my point. My point is that some offenses deserve no second chance.

Again, in the "civilian" world "no second chance" is the normal standard for egregious offences (unless perhaps you were speaking specifically of parts of the public sector?). I personally (and I suspect most of the aware taxpaying public/employers), certainly consider the (sometimes years) suspension on full pay of our public employees after a credible accusation to be a "second chance", even though the eventual (even certain) outcome may be the loss of that professionals job. It's most certainly an accommodation that none of us would get.


If this gets me banned then I honestly don't care

Oh no Brendan, while ad hominem attacks get old after a while (and are a very poor and transparent debating technique), you haven't come close to the personal name calling or vulgarity that would get you banned.

Indeed, allow me to welcome you to "The Church Of The Painful Truth" where "You Shall Know The Truth, and The Truth Shall Piss You Off".

You are most welcome here, and I hope you will sit and jaw a while. (Just be prepared to defend your statements in detail, lol.)




P.S. And remember, just because you may be bested in a debate today, it's no reason to stay out of the one tomorrow.


 
Quote:A better way to describe most of the ramblings is "verbal vomit".
Don't be shy dogcatcher, cite examples where you disagree with my "verbal vomit" and give counter arguments. Otherwise your statement is worthless and demeaning to yourself.
 
Quote:No good can come from the continuation of this thread.

Why don't ya just lock it down now?
Sorry doggin coyotes, this is the one forum on our board that was specifically designed for this type of debate.

Though we have almost certainly had the most contentious debates here, both in quantity and content of any forum on our board per post or thread, I would bet that the "church" has had the fewest threads locked of any of the popular forums by those criteria.

Expect that condition to remain as long as I am a mod here (and Chairman).

THIS is the place to vent on our board (within the TOS), just expect to have to defend your positions, lol.




 
Back
Top