How would you like to be treated by law-enforcement?

[Jack Burton]

I don't know who originally came up with that moniker, but yes, I do deny that I am your "servant." I may provide a service to you when you request my presence, but I do not cater to your wants or desires.




I pay taxes, more or less than you do depending on who has the higher salary. I don't deny that my income is derived from taxes, but my salary isn't the only thing paid for by them. And the portion of your taxes that goes toward my salary is so minute that until you start paying a majority of my salary I don't owe you, or any other single taxpayer, any special treatment.




So how would you like me to serve you? I'm not much of a cook but I am good at washing dishes and cleaning the house.



Here we go, back to the whole "servant" thing. If I'm not mistaken, the authority of the police comes from the Legislature. Maybe you should take up your gripes with them.

Frank just cannot get over his fixation with thinking that servant means servile or menial. This is why it is pointless to even discuss the issue with him. He denies the very concept of public service.

It is like arguing with the lady who calls the newsroom to complain about the way the unicorns are being treated down at the circus that has come into town for the week. It's entertaining to discuss the issue with her on the phone but ultimately the unicorns are still being mistreated after you hang up.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Frank, you DO NOT pay taxes on the income you receive as a police officer. Any income derived from public coffers IS taxes therefore by returning a tiny portion of them you aren't paying but rather just getting paid less than you were told. It is an accounting trick used for centuries or longer to convince people of something that isn't true. To make them feel as though they are contributing while at the same time making them feel as though they are earning more than they really are. Also convincing the more ignorant of the populace that cops pay taxes. It's sort of like a fast food joint giving someone that works hard a "title" in lieu of a salary increase, makes them feel special enough to ignore the fact that they are working harder for the same or less money than the FNG.

 

[lrahm]

Actually they are hired at the "public desire" in order to preserve order. If enough of the "public" (or at least enough of the influential public) didn't want police do you really think they would exist?

If you think a police department is isolated from the "whims of the public desire" you are mistaken. Granted while most law enforcement agencies can "get away" with some things, **** off the wrong "public" and see how isolated you are from the "whims" of said "public".

Actually I think the rich or influential tend to get the "highest level of service".

No disagreement from me about how messed up our tax code is.

If the influential hang around the parts of town that I tend to be be in the majority of the time, then yes they get the highest level of service. But they don't. I am an equal opportunity "arrestor" (if there is such a word). I'm sorry, I am trying to make lite of this. Actually, our beat system is made by or the size is determined by the level of crime in each beat. The smaller the beat, the larger amount of crime. We place more officers in these beats. If we develope a problem in a lower crime level beat, officers can be placed in these beats to work on that problem.

 

[melensdad]

Don't understand the concept of public desire either, eh. The public desires a peace keeping force that has investigative powers and can enforce the law. Do you actually want to argue that is is not a true. public desire and accounts for the fact that we have LEOs. Should be entertaining to read.

Don't really understand the concept of government either. He keeps quoting "government entity" as if it was a talisman to scare off the boogie under the bed. Teddy Roosevelt answers him by saying, "The government is us; we are the government, you and I." He should be saying the "You and I entity" eh.

Doesn't understand taxes either, along with the other stuff. He's busy talking about the 47 percent that don't pay income tax, and completely forgetting about the multitude of other taxes that tend to pay local stuff, such as property and sales tax, which we all pay one way or the other.

This total lack of understanding explains so much as to why it is difficult to have reasonable discussions about issues nowadays with so many people. The context of critical concepts and the meaning of words just doesn't exist as well as it should.

Wow, you really need to take a class in reading comprehension. It would also help the rest of us if you could write a coherent sentence; clearly that eludes you.

Go back and, more carefully re-read this thread, you will find your many errors.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I was getting ready to unload on frank for the attitude that being a "servant" was somehow demeaning and for his denying being a servant.

before I came on here and raised hell with a cop with the intent to convince him that he like most of us is indeed a servant, I decided to look up the word "servant". This is Merriam Webster-
Definition of SERVANT

: one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer
— ser·vant·hood noun
— ser·vant·less adjective

See servant defined for English-language learners »

See servant defined for kids »

Examples of SERVANT

1. <the wealthy family had servants to clean and cook for them>

Origin of SERVANT

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of servirFirst Known Use: 13th century


Related to SERVANT

Synonyms: daily [British], domestic, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lackey, menial, retainer, slavey, steward
Antonyms: master, mistress


Public servant is mentioned, but not defined. It looks like domestic service is the preferred meaning. The word MENIAL is specifically given as a synonym but my personal favorites are FLUNKY and LACKEY.

Hmm...... It's a good thing that I didn't just jump into the dogpile with my first gut opinion isn't it? The cops could be serving me with a stiff boot (bunny slipper?) to the neck for demeaning their service. Their taking offense at the word servant for having a menial connotation seems justified.

Strangely, I looked up "military service" and it had a straight forward meaning without implying the menial connotation.

military service

noun


Definition of MILITARY SERVICE

1
: service in arms rendered by a feudal tenant holding by military tenure

2
: active duty in a branch of the armed forces.

Police service seems very much like military service to me.

 

[Jack Burton]

Wow, you really need to take a class in reading comprehension. It would also help the rest of us if you could write a coherent sentence; clearly that eludes you.

Go back and, more carefully re-read this thread, you will find your many errors.

Well, that was a consequential answer and snappy comeback, eh.

 

[Jack Burton]

Public servant is mentioned, but not defined. It looks like domestic service is the preferred meaning. The word MENIAL is specifically given as a synonym but my personal favorites are FLUNKY and LACKEY.

And did you forget about the other words included in that very list, including "retainer" and "steward", neither of which have any connotation of flunkyhoodness or lackyness.

Actually, a steward is such an important role that it was the very first job and task created.

Christian Stewardship What God Expects from Us

Frank's problem is that he is fixated on a partial definition instead of the greater concept of the word.

 

[TheReaper]

You guys can try to spin the words all you want, Frank_N_Stein is correct, ThrottleJockey was trying to make is sound as if law enforcement officers are there to scrape the gum off his shoes, no more than that!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I was getting ready to unload on frank for the attitude that being a "servant" was somehow demeaning and for his denying being a servant.

before I came on here and raised hell with a cop with the intent to convince him that he like most of us is indeed a servant, I decided to look up the word "servant". This is Merriam Webster-
Definition of SERVANT

: one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer
— ser·vant·hood noun
— ser·vant·less adjective

See servant defined for English-language learners »

See servant defined for kids »

Examples of SERVANT

1. <the wealthy family had servants to clean and cook for them>

Origin of SERVANT

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of servirFirst Known Use: 13th century


Related to SERVANT

Synonyms: daily [British], domestic, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lackey, menial, retainer, slavey, steward
Antonyms: master, mistress


Public servant is mentioned, but not defined. It looks like domestic service is the preferred meaning. The word MENIAL is specifically given as a synonym but my personal favorites are FLUNKY and LACKEY.

Hmm...... It's a good thing that I didn't just jump into the dogpile with my first gut opinion isn't it? The cops could be serving me with a stiff boot (bunny slipper?) to the neck for demeaning their service. Their taking offense at the word servant for having a menial connotation seems justified.

Strangely, I looked up "military service" and it had a straight forward meaning without implying the menial connotation.

military service

noun


Definition of MILITARY SERVICE

1
: service in arms rendered by a feudal tenant holding by military tenure

2
: active duty in a branch of the armed forces.

Police service seems very much like military service to me.

And of course it always comes back to this, police=military....again, incorrect to say the very least. While recently the CIVILIAN service known as police have become militant in nature, they are NOT military, militia, or any other word synonymous with either. The word "servant" does NOT equate to one who is "servile" and this is where you are becoming confused. We go through this at least twice per year and quite frankly I'm getting rather sick of it. Tomorrow when everyone is awake, I'll locate my actual dictionary and present you with some actual definitions written on paper and thus not subject to being changed to serve their current needs by the animals that can read and write (reference to George Orwells Animal Farm intended).

 

[ThrottleJockey]

You guys can try to spin the words all you want, Frank_N_Stein is correct, ThrottleJockey was trying to make is sound as if law enforcement officers are there to scrape the gum off his shoes, no more than that!

I'm glad to know we have psychics on here now. Next time I need someone to tell me what I mean I'll be sure to PM you.

I mind my own business and expect them to mind theirs. I like being left the F**K alone. If there MUST be contact, I expect them to act as servants and treat me with respect and in accordance with the law.

Please by all means show me where I asked for anything more than the respect due an "innocent until proven guilty" man that wants to NOT be harassed by anyone? When I state "I mind my own business" that means I don't bother anyone or break the law. When I state "and expect them to mind theirs.", that means I don't wish to be harassed by them. When I state "I like being left the F**K alone.", I assume it is pretty self explanatory. When I state "If there MUST be contact,", that means I in NO way desire contact but if it is for some reason required. When I state " I expect them to act as servants and treat me with respect and in accordance with the law.", that means that I know exactly what they are, who they are and what their role in society is and also that I expect them not to violate my rights or attempt to "trick" me into allowing violations to occur, I expect them to do their job in accordance with the LAWS they are there to SERVE. I'm sorry I had to break that down for you into more convoluted terms, not because I don't enjoy doing it but because it is so plain and simple to anyone not trying to impose their sense of inadequacy on everything I write. I choose words that mean EXACTLY what I write and once again a butt hurt leo takes it out of context and assumes that since he read between the lines that somehow there must be between the line meaning. I watched this thread for 10 pages before I chose the words I wanted to use. Had I jumped the gun and replied to this thread as soon as it came up, I would have possibly written something with underlying context but I didn't. And YES, sometimes I do have underlying context to what I write but when I do it tends to be purple or I openly state it so it doesn't get mistaken for niceties. I think you all should know by now, that I am not afraid to say EXACTLY what I mean and if I meant I wanted LEOS to cut my grass or "scrape gum from my shoes" I would have said just that. Now I will leave you with this AGAIN so we all understand just what the actual purpose of a police force is.

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals
and this

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

And of course it always comes back to this, police=military....again, incorrect to say the very least. While recently the CIVILIAN service known as police have become militant in nature, they are NOT military, militia, or any other word synonymous with either. The word "servant" does NOT equate to one who is "servile" and this is where you are becoming confused. We go through this at least twice per year and quite frankly I'm getting rather sick of it. Tomorrow when everyone is awake, I'll locate my actual dictionary and present you with some actual definitions written on paper and thus not subject to being changed to serve their current needs by the animals that can read and write (reference to George Orwells Animal Farm intended).

Hey, I am not confused. Merriam Webster is confused. I was preparing my rebuttal to frank when I decided to actually define the word "servant".

Here is "servile"

ser·vile

adjective \ˈsər-vəl, -ˌvī(-ə)l\


Definition of SERVILE

1
: of or befitting a slave or a menial position

2
: meanly or cravenly submissive : abject
— ser·vile·ly adverb
— ser·vile·ness noun
— ser·vil·i·ty noun

See servile defined for English-language learners »

See servile defined for kids »

Examples of SERVILE

1. <had always maintained a servile attitude around people with money>

Origin of SERVILE

Middle English, from Anglo-French servil, from Latin servilis, from servus slaveFirst Known Use: 15th century


Related to SERVILE

Synonyms: base, humble, menial, abject, slavish

Notice that a synonym for servile is menial....... just like the word servant has menial listed as a synonym. I have nothing against being a servant. up until now I considered ANY employee a servant. The dictionary does not support my contention.

I suspect that many people bristled as I did at the elitist denial of being a servant and that lots of us don't consider any honest labor demeaning. unfortunately the word "menial" was specifically denied as being connected with being a servant. I felt the same way. The dictionary corrects us.

The police/military thing is not out of line. cops pack guns and bust heads, all under the protection and direction of the "government" it seems similar to what soldiers do, NOT EXACTLY THE SAME but similar. It sure as hell isn't domestic labor.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Police service seems very much like military service to me.

The police/military thing is not out of line. cops pack guns and bust heads, all under the protection and direction of the "government" it seems similar to what soldiers do, NOT EXACTLY THE SAME but similar. It sure as hell isn't domestic labor.

In so far as both are a form of civil service, with law enforcement also employing a hierarchical chain of command that is pseudo-military, there are similarities. The blurring of the real, important, and in my mind necessary distinctions between military service and police service have contributed to many of the more contentious threads on INGO pitting the musings of law enforcement civilian posters against the musings of non-law enforcement civilian posters on a multitude of subjects, unfortunately.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Hey, I am not confused. Merriam Webster is confused. I was preparing my rebuttal to frank when I decided to actually define the word "servant".

Here is "servile"

ser·vile

adjective \ˈsər-vəl, -ˌvī(-ə)l\


Definition of SERVILE

1
: of or befitting a slave or a menial position

2
: meanly or cravenly submissive : abject
— ser·vile·ly adverb
— ser·vile·ness noun
— ser·vil·i·ty noun

See servile defined for English-language learners »

See servile defined for kids »

Examples of SERVILE

1. <had always maintained a servile attitude around people with money>

Origin of SERVILE

Middle English, from Anglo-French servil, from Latin servilis, from servus slaveFirst Known Use: 15th century


Related to SERVILE

Synonyms: base, humble, menial, abject, slavish

Notice that a synonym for servile is menial....... just like the word servant has menial listed as a synonym. I have nothing against being a servant. up until now I considered ANY employee a servant. The dictionary does not support my contention.

I suspect that many people bristled as I did at the elitist denial of being a servant and that lots of us don't consider any honest labor demeaning. unfortunately the word "menial" was specifically denied as being connected with being a servant. I felt the same way. The dictionary corrects us.

The police/military thing is not out of line. cops pack guns and bust heads, all under the protection and direction of the "government" it seems similar to what soldiers do, NOT EXACTLY THE SAME but similar. It sure as hell isn't domestic labor.

Police are CIVILIANS, not MILITARY. Look up CIVILIAN and look up MILITARY. Additionally, yes webster has become rather confused over the last few decades. Next time you have the opportunity to visit a large library, go to the reference section and pull copies of their dictionary from each decade for the last...oh let's say 100 years. Now look up various words, choose a word and look it up in each printing. You will notice that much like the pigs in Animal Farm, webster has started changing things recently. Up until about the 1980s words meant the same thing in each printing but since then they have gradually begun to change. Now, did the definition of words actually change or is it that recently the perceived meaning has been changed to fit more conveniently into the agenda at hand? I suggest the latter rather than the former.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

And did you forget about the other words included in that very list, including "retainer" and "steward", neither of which have any connotation of flunkyhoodness or lackyness.

Actually, a steward is such an important role that it was the very first job and task created.

Christian Stewardship What God Expects from Us

Frank's problem is that he is fixated on a partial definition instead of the greater concept of the word.

I agree with you. My first thought about a servant being a menial job was the lesson of Jesus washing the disciples feet. The disciples were scandalized that Jesus would take a menial position like that. His lesson is plain. Still, It's not horrible that a person would think the role of a servant is demeaning, the disciples made the same mistake and Merrium Webster supports it even if only partially. You happen to bring up a higher authority. Not everybody recognizes that aspect of service right away (sometimes never)

 

[thebishopp]

If the influential hang around the parts of town that I tend to be be in the majority of the time, then yes they get the highest level of service. But they don't. I am an equal opportunity "arrestor" (if there is such a word). I'm sorry, I am trying to make lite of this. Actually, our beat system is made by or the size is determined by the level of crime in each beat. The smaller the beat, the larger amount of crime. We place more officers in these beats. If we develope a problem in a lower crime level beat, officers can be placed in these beats to work on that problem.

Not quite what I mean by "higher level of service" lol.

Put it this way.

Due to perceived or very real pressure from upper "management":

Rich influential guy calls the cops and wants something done....

much more likely to have something done than:

Poor guy who calls the cops and wants something done.


For example, kid from very poor neighborhood goes missing versus kid from rich affluent family goes missing. One has a very good chance of getting the royal police treatment and may even garner national support and attention. The other will be lucky to get anything more than a basic missing persons report.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Police are CIVILIANS, not MILITARY. Look up CIVILIAN and look up MILITARY. Additionally, yes webster has become rather confused over the last few decades. Next time you have the opportunity to visit a large library, go to the reference section and pull copies of their dictionary from each decade for the last...oh let's say 100 years. Now look up various words, choose a word and look it up in each printing. You will notice that much like the pigs in Animal Farm, webster has started changing things recently. Up until about the 1980s words meant the same thing in each printing but since then they have gradually begun to change. Now, did the definition of words actually change or is it that recently the perceived meaning has been changed to fit more conveniently into the agenda at hand? I suggest the latter rather than the former.

An example of your point is this, I used to get sandwiches at a place called Gay Dans.......... In the 70's they changed their name.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Not quite what I mean by "higher level of service" lol.

Put it this way.

Rich influential guy calls the cops and wants something done....

much more likely to have something done than:

Poor guy who calls the cops and wants something done.


For example, kid from very poor neighborhood goes missing versus kid from rich affluent family goes missing.

A damn shame, if true. Regardless though, I would lay this at the feet of the political appointees much higher up the food chain than ascribe it to any individual officer on the street.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

An example of your point is this, I used to get sandwiches at a place called Gay Dans.......... In the 70's they changed their name.

LOL, yeah good idea, wouldn't want the wrong crowd to get the wrong idea. Might have an adverse effect on business! That is where pop culture chooses to utilize a specific of several definitions in their modern slang, not really an example of a definition actually changing but rather the popular use of the word changing.

 

[SSGSAD]

WOW, WOW, I just found this thread, and read every post, and I think that RESPECT, goes BOTH ways !!!!! I spent a LOT of time in the Military... Let me tell YOU, that does NOT matter, to a lot of PEOPLE, ESP. LEO..... SOMETIMES it DOES, I ref., my thread on my encounter, with a S'bville, Patrol Officer. VERY PLEASANT, Respectful, and it ended with no citation, for ME !!!!! Officers, are taught to distrust EVERYONE. Everyone lies, at some point in their lives..... Ever watched COPS, on TV ????? That is why they seperate people at the scene of the "incident"..... So the LEO, can get the straight scoop... As far as the OP, I agree, that ALL LEO, and 911 dispatchers, should be FAMILIAR with the current Firearm LAWS.... Usually they don't change every day.... I RESPECT all LEO, Fireman, EMT, etc.... and other Military.... UNTIL, YOU do something to LOSE that RESPECT.... As far as a MWAG call is concerned, the Officer has the "duty" to protect the PUBLIC at large. NOT an indivual person, or citizen. So the Officer, SHOULD be allowed to ask for the LTCH, and call it in. THEN all questions about the firearm, SHOULD CEASE ..... Since I have read this post, I now believe, that the complainer, SHOULD be called back, and EDUCATED !!!!!

 

[CTS]

Wow. So someone involved in law enforcement comes here to get our input and this is how he's treated? People getting into side arguments and crapping up the thread with off-topic drivel, and you wonder why some LEO's are hostile towards gun owners. Someone in a position to do so is trying to address a concern a lot of us share and some people decide to behave like spoiled three year olds.

So that out of the way, first off EPD1102, I can't tell you how much I personally appreciate this thread. Trying to learn more about the behavior and desires of lawful members of your community is a great idea and I hope it translates into valuable training material.

Now personally, I completely understand the need to respond to every M/W-WAG call. Imagine if the 911 operator simply lectured the caller and the individual with a gun turned out to have a violent intent. Outside of the fact that a clear opportunity to potentially prevent a pending crime was missed, the ensuing media storm would be extreme to say the least. Also I don't think it could hurt to say to the caller "Just so you know, carrying a weapon in Indiana is not necessarily illegal, but we'll send someone by to check it out anyway." So when responding to a call, once a person is observed if they're not displaying signs that cause you to believe a more authoritative approach is prudent:

-Approach the subject casually
-Indicate why you're approaching them
-Inquire to their LTCH status
-If they have one and you have no other concerns, say thanks and let them be on their way.

Now, my personal stance is that guns are safest in their holster. So unless the situation warrants otherwise, the default behavior should be to leave weapons where they are. That said, I can appreciate the concern of not leaving someone armed when your attention needs to be temporarily elsewhere or if their behavior raises concern (though I would imagine you have to be aware that anyone could potentially become a threat and maintain your awareness anyway). So if you do feel you need to disarm someone:

-Please don't ask them to remove their own weapon. If you're alone and are uncomfortable removing the weapon (for reasons like proximity danger), call in backup, I'll be happy to wait. I don't want to handle a weapon in your presence because I'm worried my nervous twitch might result unwelcome action on your part.

-Before attempting to remove it, please ask if there are any special retention mechanisms you should be aware of (like a serpa holster) and if the gun has been modified in any way that might present additional danger when handling/clearing it. Also it should go without saying, but remember to follow the four rules when handling it, so that if there is a ND nobody is hurt as a result. Additionally, if it's not too difficult, it would probably be preferable to take the entire holster and gun together as a unit so the trigger remains guarded while the weapon is being removed. I know I wouldn't want to pull a gun out of a mechanical retention holster I wasn't really familiar with while someone was wearing it.

-When you're done, assuming your concerns are alleviated, don't hand it back to me and don't try to re-holster it for me. Leave it in whatever condition you feel appropriate (loaded/unloaded/empty mag) and tell me when it's alright to reload and re-holster (like when you're back in your vehicle, when you've left the scene, etc..). Again, I don't want you to have even the slightest opportunity to believe I've suddenly developed a hostile intent.

So that's what I can think of. Now that's my opinion on how it should go, but if you don't mind, I would like to ask if there's anything gun owners can do better to help the situation out as well. What can we do to ensure a smoother process?

Some of my thoughts on the matter:

-To the people who say they give the level of respect they get, I think escalating a situation by back talking to an officer (even when the officer is clearly being a jerk) is stupid and can only serve to potentially harm you. I can't think of a single scenario where being mouthy with a police officer, no matter who started it, is going to help me. I can't imagine with all of the combined training on this board, not escalating a situation isn't hard coded into most everyone here.

-Also when I'm involved in a traffic stop, I pull over, turn my tires towards the curb, and put my keys in the passenger seat or visibly on the dash if it's empty. Also if it's at night, I'll flip on my interior lights right away. I've been approached twice at night and both times the officers were very grateful that I did that, and the time I was speeding I'm pretty sure it saved me a ticket. The other time I had broken down on US 30 and it was really cold and he let me warm up in his car while waiting for a tow. Showing some courtesy will often get you some in return.

Now that's not to say I'm going to give permission to search or anything like that if I don't think you have a good reason to, but I'm not going to go out of my way to be a jerk either.