Town Hall Meeting: INGO and Law Enforcement

[USMC_0311]

There is no substitute, no magic bullet, to replace active moderation. One tip used by larger forums with multiple subforums is to assign mods to a single subforum. Warn and ban as they see fit. The "blanket statement" line is also a non-starter. It's human nature to group people. How would a politician feel if he visited some of the subforums? Teachers? Union members? The top thread in the GF forum right now is a thread comparing union workers to a Ruger recall. They don't work and you can't fire them.

Yup

 

[Dirtebiker]

Calling it censorship implies that you had the right to say something in the first place.
No one has any right to say anything on a Forum unless the Admin Staff allow it.
I've had posts deleted and I'm not the least bit upset about that.
It's the right of the Site Owner, and their appointed Staff, to change, alter, or delete any post they choose.

Censorship has nothing to do with the RIGHT to say something!
Censorship simply means "the practice of censoring".... Usually deleting material deemed offensive or objectionable!

 

[Dirtebiker]

LEO Forums are exactly that.
Forums for LEO's.
That fact is stated in their Forum name, and non LEO's should be smart enough to realize that they may not be welcomed if they attack Law Enforcement personnel there.
This is a Forum for Indiana Gun Owners.
Which happens to include just about every LEO in the State.
Now, if they were to change the name to Indiana Gun Owners Except Cops then LEO's could expect to be unwelcome here.
If someone here doesn't want to have input from fellow gun owners simply because they are LEO's then they can start their own Forum and make LEO's unwelcome there.
Like I said before.
The Owner sets the theme for the Forum.

Who said that leos are not welcome here?

 

[UncleMike]

Who said that leos are not welcome here?

Most LEO's here feel about as welcome as a turd in a punch bowl.
After you've been here longer and have read a few thousand negative LEO posts you'll get the general idea.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I have found this to be true also. None of the cops I know read INGO or will post here.

If any group of people could smooth things over it would be the INGO community. But I don't see how you are going to get many from IMPD to come to such an event. And let me say this, its not a matter of butt-hurt. I have done ride along's and man the crap IMPD officers put up with from the public at large is more than I could take. Especially on the east side of Indy. They dont need to come to a fourm like INGO and go though more negative encounters after a "hard day at the office" so to speak.

I will ask around but I'm pretty sure there is not going to much interest from the officers I know.

So are you using that"broad brush" to say that all east siders all act the same towards l.e.?!?!? Sounds like eastsider bashing to me and I think that should be banned!( I don't know how to use purple, I can barely use my I-pad!)

 

[Dirtebiker]

This is just my .02.

Getting rid of religon was good for ingo because people couldn't be civil (i.e. adults) about it.

Getting rid of police threads would be good for ingo because people can't be civil about it.

Thanks again Fenway.

^^^^^^^^^^^^WRONG^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discussions about gun ownership and gun rights will undoubtedly, occasionally involve law enforcement! Good AND bad!
I don't think ANY subject should be off limits... Only that any subjects that Fenway thinks may get heated get their own thread, so readers can decide for THEMSELVES , what kind of discussions they want to be involved in!!!

CENSORSHIP IS NEVER GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dirtebiker]

That's the point. Sometimes i'm off my game and I can't alway's hang with the heavy hitters here on certain topics so I make my point and know when to get out and move on to something else. No skiin off my back.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^+1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Dirtebiker]

We could also just take a more pro-active and strict stance on the 13+ age requirement on memberships. If any member makes a post that would make a mod question that they are at least 13 years of age, simply ban their account until they submit some kind of legal age verification.

W.T.F.?????????

I've seen many posts that would make one think that the writer was a juvenile! I've probably been there myself.

How do you think you're going to verify someone's age???? And why???.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Firstly, I'd like to start of with: This is the internet. The more you put yourself out there, the more you open yourself up for ridicule. If you get your feelings hurt over someone else's view or opinion easily, perhaps you shouldn't post on the internet. You're not ready to deal with people.

That being said: When someone gets repeatedly bashed for something another sect of their profession did that may or may not apply to them... Wouldn't you expect someone to get defensive at some point? Complaining about generalites will get you nothing but headache. If you're going to complain, be specific. No one likes to be painted with a broad brush.

Cops in general get a bad rap for the stupid crap that the individuals do. My father was in and out of Law Enforcement for 30+ years. I can't tell you how many stories he'd come home with where one of his fellow officers did something stupid, and then his deparment would get some form of reprimand because of one individual idiot.

Yes, we can agree there are training issues as a whole within the LEO Community. That's a problem with their upper eschelons, not the individual officer. If an individual officer is acting like a douchebag, then call that individual officer out. Get their name and badge number. Write a letter, and send copies to every level of their chain of command. File a formal complaint. SOMEONE will deal with it.

How can we ease this tensions on INGO? It's not an easy fix, I can tell you that. You COULD start a forum for LEO's... but that just pushes the notion that LEO's get special treatment. At the end of the day, they put their pants on the same way we do. One leg at a time.

INGO is a place for ALL people, regardless of your profession, to discuss firearms. If LEO's get their own forum, then Military would need their own, Lawyers would need their own, Carpenters, Doctors, etc. It's a needless addition that only perpetuates the problem.

Looking back at Techres's analogy... this is Fenway's table. It's not his problem if his guests don't like each other... but it BECOMES his problem when people fight over the last turkey breast (read: winning the argument).

If you're going to argue about it over the internet, you're obviously not addressing the real problem and at the end of the day, you've expelled all of this energy, accomplished nothing, and more than likely made yourself look like an ass.

People will believe what they believe, whether you agree with them or not. You can't change that with a forum post or a slew of posts. The best thing you can do is let it flow off your back like water because if it won't mean anything 5 years from now, It won't mean anything 5 minutes from now.

Thicker skin? Over on aisle 5. Next.

Well said!

 

[Dirtebiker]

There is no way to resolve the issue with LEO bashing. To many feelings from both sides! Just make a Zero Tolerance policy ends it from both ends!

Huh????? Pass the aspirin.

 

[UncleMike]

^^^^^^^^^^^^WRONG^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discussions about gun ownership and gun rights will undoubtedly, occasionally involve law enforcement! Good AND bad!
I don't think ANY subject should be off limits... Only that any subjects that Fenway thinks may get heated get their own thread, so readers can decide for THEMSELVES , what kind of discussions they want to be involved in!!!

CENSORSHIP IS NEVER GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point is.
This is Fenway's site.
Not yours.
Not mine.
He gets to decide what the members get to read, and what they can post.
And he's ultimately responsible for whatever happens here.
If you want to decide the subject matter of a forum you'll have to start your own.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I've read/skimmed through the 120+ postss and not once did someone define "bashing." Because I know damn good and well that there are people who think any comment that casts LE in a negative light or is critical of LE policies, specific or general, consider it bashing.

I can think of only 2 members that I would say can honestly carry the mantle of cop-hater. Without exception, every other person who weighs in against LE does so from the standpoint that the methods, policies, regulations, and behaviors that are becoming the norm are dangerous to the freedom of the individual. It takes some intellectual honesty on the part of our LE members to recognize that while this is a criticism applied to LE in general precisely because it is NOT limited to one department, city, state, or area of the country, it is NOT an indictment of all law enforcement OFFICERS. If we who keep a critical eye on those who have the power over us can make the distinction, why can't they?

I'm a Realtor, and I will condemn the national housing industry up one side and down the other, including my own trade organization, NAR, for their anti-freedom and excessively regulatory approach to housing issues. But am I condemning each and every Realtor, lender, appraiser, and home inspector that is a part of my industry? No. That would be stupid. The average player isn't responsible for the decisions that led to the crisis. Why would I blame them?

In the same vein, the average beat cop, detective, or whatever isn't responsible for the policies that give free rein to LE to shoot first and ask questions later, administer take-downs so violent that it puts a man in a coma, etc. So when I criticize these policies, I'm criticizing the policies. And when I criticize the men who do it (because let's face it, there's no justification in an action merely because no rule exists that says you can't), I'm criticizing ONLY the men who do it. If you're a LEO who doesn't abuse the rights of the people because the courts have said you could, then those criticisms clearly don't apply to you.

Now, to keep this post on target: until you define bashing and control it within that specific definition, you will have no solution.

Another well put( and I assume by "men", you mean people)

 

[Kase]

Huh????? Pass the aspirin.

Lay off the coffee son

 

[UncleMike]

Lay off the coffee son

My thoughts exactly!!

 

[Dirtebiker]

How about we have an Ultimate US vs THEM shoot off...

When we show up to the range one side will be labeled "US"...the other side "THEM".




I bet there will be more shooters on the "US" Team.

I think we are all "US" that's the idea of this forum..... US, who like to talk about, learn about guns and gun issues! We are(or should) generally be on the same team!

 

[88GT]

Most LEO's here feel about as welcome as a turd in a punch bowl.
After you've been here longer and have read a few thousand negative LEO posts you'll get the general idea.

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page, could you define "negative."

 

[japartridge]

wow, dirtbiker... you are scareing even me!

 

[KG1]

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page, could you define "negative."

Anything that is'nt positive I guess would be considered negative.

 

[UncleMike]

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page, could you define "negative."

Nope!!
You've read/responded to enough of my posts to know what I mean.

 

[Benny]

Anything that is'nt positive I guess would be considered negative.

I think you're forgetting neutral.