NYPD Officer = not public servant?

Hi

I would like to preface this by saying that I mean no disrespect to the many law enforcement officers that are members of these boards, and I hope nothing I say will be taken as offensive. Actually, it is their opinions I am particularly interested in.

The following is a Youtube clip that a friend sent me. I presume that this video was taken during one of political demonstrations that took place outside the "free speech zones".

In it, a police officer who's armed with a submachine gun is asked why his nametag and shield are hidden, since he's a public servant. To which he replied: "I'm not".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6haceZmP_64

Now I understand that the people who took this video might've been obnoxious *holes, who had nothing better to do than hassle police. But to me that response was shocking, to say the least. Maybe it's because I am a hopeless romantic with a longing for a time of honor and integrity that never existed. When I took my Hippocratic Oath, I meant it, and I have been beside myself on a couple of occasions when I encountered physicians who clearly did not.

Now I pose this question to the community: What do you think of the clip, the situation, and the officer's response?

I spent a number of years in law enforcement, both military and civilian, and emergency management.

The only realistic reason for the coverup of the name would be to avoid recognition and retribution. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason to hide the badge number.

For many years I opposed and spoke against the "militarization" of our civilian law enforcement agencies. Then came 9-11. I still don't like it, but I no longer oppose it as vociforously as I once did.

The insular "us vs. them" attitude of the law enforcement community in general is historic and is not going to change, so we, as civilians, must just live with it.

Without seeing the big picture of what transpired before the clip I have little opinion. I do agree with Bigiron though that there is no legitimate reason to have badge/name covered. If displaying badge and name is required by the NYPD by it's own protocol then that cop should be disciplined for not following regs.

It's really the thought of a police officer who's better armed than the citizens he/she serves which frightens me more than not giving a name/badge number. Disarming the citizenry has been proven time and again to be a recipe for disaster. IMHO until the average person with no felony criminal record can carry any weapon they want (provided they receive proper training for it) the police shouldn't be armed with anything more than a nightstick or perhaps a taser. Sheesh, a submachinegun in the middle of Manhattan. If this guy suddenly decides to go postal for whatever reason he can take out 100 people with little chance of anyone returning fire. Not saying that's likely at all, just that I've read about enough cops going off the deep end, killing their girlfriends or whatever, to be worried that something like that could conceiveably happen.

And just for the record the people who made that video are a bunch of provocative idiots. Despite what I said above, I see no good reason to hassle the police with nonsense. Their job is already tough enough.

Can't see the video so I don't know exactly what happened. But if the officer in question is in tactical gear such as tactical body armor or a slip on tactical nylon vest with magazine pouches then he might not have his metal badge on but a generic NYPD badge patch and other identifying police patches.

In fairness to the cop the guys with the cameras were being confrontational. It looked to me like the people were asking the police questions that they were unable to answer due to the job they were assigned to at the time. The officer directed them to the person who could answer their questions and they started to quiz him on the constitution. Had they left it at that and walked away I would have had more sympathy for their situation, but then they go and tell the cop they have an AR-15 at home!

Obviously the police are our servants (the public that is) but when they have to field questions from assholes like this it does give some insight into their job.

... until the average person with no felony criminal record can carry any weapon they want (provided they receive proper training for it) the police shouldn't be armed with anything more than a nightstick or perhaps a taser.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a smart-*** or anything like that... but did you really mean to post that as it is? No typos? Because right now, with the current laws in NY, the ones who are carrying to deadliest weapons are the ones WITH felony criminal records and little to no training! :thinking:

We are here to save your behind.....not kiss it. therefore no servant for you! hahahaha

j/k. I understand the frustration of the nypd officers at scene.......would have done the same.

Sasha said:

I'm not trying to be a smart-*** or anything like that... but did you really mean to post that as it is? No typos? Because right now, with the current laws in NY, the ones who are carrying to deadliest weapons are the ones WITH felony criminal records and little to no training! :thinking:

Click to expand...

I know the current situation in NYC regarding only criminals being armed, and unfortunately that means the police must be armed also to deal with it (or they would have even bigger recruitment problems than they're already having). I'm simply talking about the way I think it should be, not the way it is. I personally find it disconcerting that both the police and the criminals are better armed than the average citizen, but that's the side effect of very strong gun control laws. I also know nothing will change here until either we stop electing far-left politicians, or the Supreme Court rules our gun control laws unconstitutional.

So no, I don't expect the police to lay down their arms at this point. That would be foolhardy as there will always be an armed criminal element. I just wish that I could be as well armed should I wish to be (not sure I would carry regardless but the decision should be mine, not some politician's). I guess I should have elaborated a bit more.

I always am a little suspicious of these little clips because they rarely show what lead up to the incident. There have been too many cases in the past where, once the full scope of what happened is known, the reality is entirely different from the spin presented by the YouTube or evening news clip. IIRC, there was even one case where the videographer chose to go to jail rather than provide the full unedited tape to the police that were trying to defend themselves from abuse charges brought after one of these clips made the evening news. I don't know how that case ever turned out, but it sure suggests there was something on the tape that supported the defense of the officers.

Switching gears a little:

Sasha said:

.......Because right now, with the current laws in NY, the ones who are carrying to deadliest weapons are the ones WITH felony criminal records and little to no training! :thinking:

Click to expand...

:twothumbs

LEO's should be at least as well-armed as the BG's. Maybe when the BG's see the error of their ways we can have a group hug and everyone beat their glocks into plowshears.

The Florida FBI shootout and the West Hollywood bank scrape started the LEO/BG arms race. Who knows where it will end.

Well said, Don.

And Springbok, thanks for your post. It's exactly that attitude that leads to civilian dislike and distrust of law enforcement.

Lest you forget, the supreme court has already ruled that the police do not have to provide help to any specific person in need. They have to try and catch the person who killed you, but don't have to responde to your 911 call for help.

The case involved 2 woman who were raped repeatedly over the course of several hours. This was all AFTER their 911 call for help.

I worked in the city for a number of years, just north of Times Square. After 9-11 there were almost always police on a lot of the corners, dressed in tactical gear. They were also in Penn Station ( main commuter rail station to Long Island and New Jersey ) I would say they were always professional, friendly, up to point. This even includes the K-9 group. I have seen them giving directions to tourists, even allowing pictures to be taken with the tourists. ( not sure if that is a good idea )

I watched the video and I suspect the person asking for the name and badge number got under their skin in some way. What is missing is the beginning of conversation.

If you treat someone with respect, you get respect in return.

I just wish that I could be as well armed should I wish to be ...

Click to expand...

Move to Arizona...

(I used to live in NY... I don't anymore... and never will again)

I think what the officer meant to say was along the lines of "I'm not your servant your ignorant *hole!"

Sasha said:

Move to Arizona...

Click to expand...

...you can add Alaska to the list as well! :thumbsup:

The last Texas legislature did good. We're even more firearm friendly now. I'd say we're in the top 10 maybe the top 5. Alaska leads the way, closely followed by Vermont (yes, Vermont - unless things have changed lately).

I think Vermont is still "friendly". We've been looking into the New England area to buy property to build on when we retire in 8 years. We've been checking the gun laws first to decide where to start looking for property...

The punk in the video isn't real bright, nor right. Neither is the one that attempted to make a similar statement through the production of the video.

The rationale used by the punk was: The officer, serving the public, needed to act subordinate at the whim of anyone that wanted to act as if they were the one calling the shots. Though the officer was apparently simplifying his responses, had he wanted to speak more correctly could have told the punk "yes, I am a servant of the public, but I'm not your servant; actually I could possibly be your worst nightmare."

I'm sure there are some circumstances that an officer readily offers identifying information, but I don't know of any "rights" that any citizen has to such at all times or from all officers. There is a very large number of duties, roles, assignments or missions that law enforcement personnel would not readily reveal themselves, and some would be completely covert.

The punk was an idiot that couldn't fulfill his assumed role of defender of the constitution even if given the opportunity, since he understands neither his own rights nor the obligations of the officer.

jtr1962 said:

I know the current situation in NYC regarding only criminals being armed, and unfortunately that means the police must be armed also to deal with it (or they would have even bigger recruitment problems than they're already having). I'm simply talking about the way I think it should be, not the way it is. I personally find it disconcerting that both the police and the criminals are better armed than the average citizen, but that's the side effect of very strong gun control laws. I also know nothing will change here until either we stop electing far-left politicians, or the Supreme Court rules our gun control laws unconstitutional.

So no, I don't expect the police to lay down their arms at this point. That would be foolhardy as there will always be an armed criminal element. I just wish that I could be as well armed should I wish to be (not sure I would carry regardless but the decision should be mine, not some politician's). I guess I should have elaborated a bit more.

Click to expand...

For some reason when I read your posts all I see is blah blah blah blah...

Just so you know, with exception of certain local municipalities any NON-felony citizen can own automatic weapons on par as well as far beyond what the officer is carrying. Just have to be willing to pay the money and do the federal background check that will be required.