Town Hall Meeting: INGO and Law Enforcement

[Bill of Rights]

Some have suggested that those who don't like "bad LEO" threads should just not open them. While that works fine for those who don't really have a dog in the fight (i.e. not LEOs nor those who feel repressed by them) it has another effect: It tends to make those who are LEOs who are not members here refuse to join the site. I'm not alone in saying that INGO has benefited greatly from having LEOs here as a resource to give a viewpoint most of us will never understand from the perspective of living it. The same can be said of other professions as well, but few of those others hold sway over any part of our lives. In addition, when so many of our threads (started by a very vocal minority of our members) are so virulently anti-cop/anti-authority/TFH, it detracts from the theme of the board, which is INdiana Gun Owners, not INdiana TinFoilHatters.

I see benefit in the "+1/-1 LEO" threads only if we want to increase the divide. It sounds very good in theory, and I'm not intending to diss Que at all for it, I just see it doing the exact opposite of what is intended. I learned many years ago that if you can't say something nice about someone, shut your bloody mouth! I've had quite a few people give me rep over the years for addressing people with civility and respect for their position no matter how strongly I disagreed with that position. I've had good relations with the LEOs I've had the pleasure of discussing various threads. Spasmo has had on her sig here something to the effect of "Disagree with the post, not the poster." It's not about who says it, with very few exceptions, most of which exceptions are of interest only to the mod staff and only because those specific individuals are already skating on thin ice due to previous indiscretions.

My point? Be civil. Be respectful. Those points go both ways: posting a smiley or posting a "Just an isolated incident" or "Just a bad apple. How many does that make this week?"-type post only serves to provoke a fight, no matter if the post comes from a LEO or an anti-LEO. This should not require Fenway to post "town hall meetings", it should not require the mod staff to have to point out these things or other helpful and useful suggestions. It should be something you, as adults, should inherently know and use as guides to your behavior and practice.



Fenway, if this is not what you're looking for, I'm sorry. It's the best suggestion that came to mind for me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[PatriotPride]

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

You mean the majority of posts that point out the wrongful actions of individual LEOs?

 

[88GT]

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

Actually, no. I've read enough of your posts to know that you can't distinguish between criticisms of LE policies and general bashing based in utter contempt for all LEO. I'ver read enough to know that you seem to think that because YOU'VE never behaved badly towards the citizenry, it's ludicrous to think that it happens or that it should be given anything more than a passing interest. I've read enough to know that you don't like LE being placed under the microscope (to which I can only ask "why?" Just what exactly are you afraid will be found?)

But I can't say that I could definitively describe your version of negative.

But hey. Don't try and contribute in constructive ways. Just keep *****ing that you don't like the way things are.

 

[SSGSAD]

Your solution is really simple then.
If the LEO's go away there won't be any problems.
Apparently you don't want to share this Forum with Government Employees, and LEO's in particular.
Ummmm........
No!!
Don't think I'll oblige you.

Ranger, remember, WE, were Gov't employees, at one time or another...
That, doesn't make US, bad people.... There is bad, everywhere, in ALL professions, one bad apple, doesn't spoil the whole barrel.....

 

[88GT]

Sounds like a a complete moron.... Way to keep your cool!

I was thinking we would have 20+ pages by this evening when I read the title but since it didn't involve a LEO I'm guessing 10-13 pgs.

I might add that Fenway issue himself a cease and desist order for fanning the flames.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I've read enough to know that you don't like LE being placed under the microscope (to which I can only ask "why?" Just what exactly are you afraid will be found?)...

Hold on, 88GT... This sounds a whole lot like "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." and granted, government employees are our employees, but the above quoted sounds like a double standard to me.

That said, Fenway DID request this be kept to helpful suggestions, and the conversation I jumped into here seems more of a personal discussion between the two of you. Let's keep this to his intent and take those discussions elsewhere, shall we? Please?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Que]

Some have suggested that those who don't like "bad LEO" threads should just not open them. While that works fine for those who don't really have a dog in the fight (i.e. not LEOs nor those who feel repressed by them) it has another effect: It tends to make those who are LEOs who are not members here refuse to join the site. I'm not alone in saying that INGO has benefited greatly from having LEOs here as a resource to give a viewpoint most of us will never understand from the perspective of living it. The same can be said of other professions as well, but few of those others hold sway over any part of our lives. In addition, when so many of our threads (started by a very vocal minority of our members) are so virulently anti-cop/anti-authority/TFH, it detracts from the theme of the board, which is INdiana Gun Owners, not INdiana TinFoilHatters.

I see benefit in the "+1/-1 LEO" threads only if we want to increase the divide. It sounds very good in theory, and I'm not intending to diss Que at all for it, I just see it doing the exact opposite of what is intended. I learned many years ago that if you can't say something nice about someone, shut your bloody mouth! I've had quite a few people give me rep over the years for addressing people with civility and respect for their position no matter how strongly I disagreed with that position. I've had good relations with the LEOs I've had the pleasure of discussing various threads. Spasmo has had on her sig here something to the effect of "Disagree with the post, not the poster." It's not about who says it, with very few exceptions, most of which exceptions are of interest only to the mod staff and only because those specific individuals are already skating on thin ice due to previous indiscretions.

My point? Be civil. Be respectful. Those points go both ways: posting a smiley or posting a "Just an isolated incident" or "Just a bad apple. How many does that make this week?"-type post only serves to provoke a fight, no matter if the post comes from a LEO or an anti-LEO. This should not require Fenway to post "town hall meetings", it should not require the mod staff to have to point out these things or other helpful and useful suggestions. It should be something you, as adults, should inherently know and use as guides to your behavior and practice.



Fenway, if this is not what you're looking for, I'm sorry. It's the best suggestion that came to mind for me.

Blessings,
Bill

Acting like adults is always the best option. I believe this is the best suggestion offered so far.

 

[88GT]

Hold on, 88GT... This sounds a whole lot like "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." and granted, government employees are our employees, but the above quoted sounds like a double standard to me.

That said, Fenway DID request this be kept to helpful suggestions, and the conversation I jumped into here seems more of a personal discussion between the two of you. Let's keep this to his intent and take those discussions elsewhere, shall we? Please?

Blessings,
Bill

How is it a double standard? And, no, it's more like "What do you possibly gain from keeping the bad LE policies swept under the rug?"

I asked him a specific question in an effort DEFINE the problem, since that hasn't really been done. I mean, what constitutes "cop-bashing?" What is a "negative" thread? One that treats all LEOs with contempt? Yeah, I'd agree with that. Or is it simply one that doesn't make him feel all warm and fuzzy?

How in the world can you create a solution without defining the problem? Since he's one of the few LEO contributing to this conversation, I thought it would be a very good thing to have him provide his version, his definition.

And what do I get in return? Some snide, smart-ass comment. Fine. But let it be known that when he was offered a chance to have a say in the solution, to define the problem with his input, he turned his back on the negotiating table.

There won't be a solution because too many people benefit from the status quo.

 

[PatriotPride]

Some have suggested that those who don't like "bad LEO" threads should just not open them. While that works fine for those who don't really have a dog in the fight (i.e. not LEOs nor those who feel repressed by them) it has another effect: It tends to make those who are LEOs who are not members here refuse to join the site. I'm not alone in saying that INGO has benefited greatly from having LEOs here as a resource to give a viewpoint most of us will never understand from the perspective of living it. The same can be said of other professions as well, but few of those others hold sway over any part of our lives. In addition, when so many of our threads (started by a very vocal minority of our members) are so virulently anti-cop/anti-authority/TFH, it detracts from the theme of the board, which is INdiana Gun Owners, not INdiana TinFoilHatters.

I see benefit in the "+1/-1 LEO" threads only if we want to increase the divide. It sounds very good in theory, and I'm not intending to diss Que at all for it, I just see it doing the exact opposite of what is intended. I learned many years ago that if you can't say something nice about someone, shut your bloody mouth! I've had quite a few people give me rep over the years for addressing people with civility and respect for their position no matter how strongly I disagreed with that position. I've had good relations with the LEOs I've had the pleasure of discussing various threads. Spasmo has had on her sig here something to the effect of "Disagree with the post, not the poster." It's not about who says it, with very few exceptions, most of which exceptions are of interest only to the mod staff and only because those specific individuals are already skating on thin ice due to previous indiscretions.

My point? Be civil. Be respectful. Those points go both ways: posting a smiley or posting a "Just an isolated incident" or "Just a bad apple. How many does that make this week?"-type post only serves to provoke a fight, no matter if the post comes from a LEO or an anti-LEO. This should not require Fenway to post "town hall meetings", it should not require the mod staff to have to point out these things or other helpful and useful suggestions. It should be something you, as adults, should inherently know and use as guides to your behavior and practice.



Fenway, if this is not what you're looking for, I'm sorry. It's the best suggestion that came to mind for me.

Blessings,
Bill

With respect, I disagree. I operate under the assumption (and until I'm proven wrong) that we are adults here. As adults, we have free will as to what threads we choose to open and read. I do not visit here to read about edged weapons, so I choose not to open the blades subforum. Likewise, should I feel irritated by the Political subforum, I will recuse myself for a time. If a LEO truly feels that INGO would not be a worthwhile use of their time, then that is their choice---a choice that they chose to make.

I'll be blunt---I feel it is insulting to bring this issue to the table while pointing fingers at only one "guilty party, so to speak". Non-LEOs do not hold a monopoly on sarcasm and bashing.

In my opinion, INGO is coming close to setting a dangerous precedent. If the Admin choose to ban "LEO-bashing" (which STILL has not satisfactorily been defined), then the same precedent MUST be applied to all professions, sexual preference, gender, etc. Bans will either be handed out en masse, or members will simply stop visiting. I'd say that the loss of paying customers that have been alienated will far outweigh any potential gains.

Apologies if this is too off-topic.

 

[Denny347]

Some have suggested that those who don't like "bad LEO" threads should just not open them. While that works fine for those who don't really have a dog in the fight (i.e. not LEOs nor those who feel repressed by them) it has another effect: It tends to make those who are LEOs who are not members here refuse to join the site. I'm not alone in saying that INGO has benefited greatly from having LEOs here as a resource to give a viewpoint most of us will never understand from the perspective of living it. The same can be said of other professions as well, but few of those others hold sway over any part of our lives. In addition, when so many of our threads (started by a very vocal minority of our members) are so virulently anti-cop/anti-authority/TFH, it detracts from the theme of the board, which is INdiana Gun Owners, not INdiana TinFoilHatters.

I see benefit in the "+1/-1 LEO" threads only if we want to increase the divide. It sounds very good in theory, and I'm not intending to diss Que at all for it, I just see it doing the exact opposite of what is intended. I learned many years ago that if you can't say something nice about someone, shut your bloody mouth! I've had quite a few people give me rep over the years for addressing people with civility and respect for their position no matter how strongly I disagreed with that position. I've had good relations with the LEOs I've had the pleasure of discussing various threads. Spasmo has had on her sig here something to the effect of "Disagree with the post, not the poster." It's not about who says it, with very few exceptions, most of which exceptions are of interest only to the mod staff and only because those specific individuals are already skating on thin ice due to previous indiscretions.

My point? Be civil. Be respectful. Those points go both ways: posting a smiley or posting a "Just an isolated incident" or "Just a bad apple. How many does that make this week?"-type post only serves to provoke a fight, no matter if the post comes from a LEO or an anti-LEO. This should not require Fenway to post "town hall meetings", it should not require the mod staff to have to point out these things or other helpful and useful suggestions. It should be something you, as adults, should inherently know and use as guides to your behavior and practice.



Fenway, if this is not what you're looking for, I'm sorry. It's the best suggestion that came to mind for me.

Blessings,
Bill

Well said Bill...par for the course for you sir. I am not sure there is a solution that will please all. I do not throw out "cop hater" or "basher" titles becuase they get used too often and there are only a FEW that would deserve it...some of which were banned. I understand posting/discussing LEO topics..."bad cops". I get it, I really do. However, I, like most of my brothers/sisters, LOVE being an LEO. I love my job. Even with all the BS I have to deal with some days, I look forward to going to work. I believe in my profession, it is a noble one. I am not a minority in a mostly "bad" profession. Simply not true. We have our bad officers and crappy departments, I agree. What I take exception to is the growing idea that the uncommon (isolated) bad incidents are not isolated...meaning they are common. If they are common then these offenses committed by a large percentage. Again, I have yet to see proof of that. There are 800k LEO's in the United States, these posted incidents don't even come CLOSE to portraying my profession correctly, as some claim. THAT is what I tire of. I know I know, there are many people who just HATE what I represent. I see it in daily on people's faces when I stop for lunch...they are doing their best not to spit at me from their table, I hear what they say about me when I walk past. It's part of the job and it is ignored...I say nothing about it. But I come here to get a "breath of fresh air" and talk about one of the things I love...guns. I remember when Mike started this site...we were posters in the Indiana section of AR15.com. It was a lot brighter back then. We all got along for the most part and we talked about guns. DUH, that is why were are here in the first place...we are all gun owners and enthusiasts. Sadly, we don't talk much about guns on a GUN forum. I see the same BS I get at work every day and it does wear on me at times. I spend more time on the BMW forums lately since they don't seem to care that I'm a cop...we all just love our cars.

 

[MinuteMan47]

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!

My reply...








Wow.

(Did you mean to call the Mr. Obvious Show?)


....we put up signs that say...."US" and ....."THEM"............which side do you go to........ahh nevermind

 

[Denny347]

In my opinion, INGO is coming close to setting a dangerous precedent. If the Admin choose to ban "LEO-bashing" (which STILL has not satisfactorily been defined), then the same precedent MUST be applied to all professions, sexual preference, gender, etc. Bans will either be handed out en masse, or members will simply stop visiting. I'd say that the loss of paying customers that have been alienated will far outweigh any potential gains.

There really is no MUST about it. It is a private forum who's owner decides what fly's and what doesn't. There have already been paying customers who have left over this issue. Can't please everyone.

 

[PatriotPride]

There really is no MUST about it. It is a private forum who's owner decides what fly's and what doesn't. There have already been paying customers who have left over this issue. Can't please everyone.

In my opinion, yes it MUST be that way. Otherwise, the hypocrisy will be so deafening it will cease to be funny. Those who clamor for equality should be willing to provide just that...equality.

 

[mk2ja]

Maybe it is just my engineering background talking, but I believe that a problem can never be solved, a disagreement never resolved, until all parties involved have clear definitions upon which resolution discussions can be based.

It's been said in this thread that Fenway should post what he envisions INGO being, and it is literally something I've been saying since before the discussion about whether politics and religion should be banned. We don't yet have a definition if what INGO is; having that allows all of us to support it with our posts and to protect it by avoiding posts that breach it and reporting posts that do breach it.

Furthermore, I have never observed INGO to be inherently anti-cop site, nor to have an overall anti-cop mood. So when asked for suggestions on how to change this, I maintain that an articulate definition of what qualifies as "bashing" must be laid down before we can deal with how to reduce, redirect, or eliminate such posts.

 

[88GT]

There really is no MUST about it. It is a private forum who's owner decides what fly's and what doesn't. There have already been paying customers who have left over this issue. Can't please everyone.

You're right. They could choose to treat discussions involving LE with kid gloves while letting everything else slide. But then no one could ever again claim with an ounce of credibility that INGO is concerned with making sure all members feel welcome.

If they want to justify a regulation on "equality" of experience for all, then they can't very well create an environment where one group gets immunity from all scrutiny without looking like a bunch of hypocrites, can they?

That said, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. It would just be nice if rules--whatever they end up being--were made and enforced. I don't need to be talked down to or told it's raining.

 

[level.eleven]

It would be a shame if the actions/policies/procedures of the BATFE were ever banned from discussion.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I've scanned through about a bazillion posts - and if I've missed one - please forgive me. It sounds to me like the concern is NOT that people are expressing negative opinions of a given situation... but that people are expressing BLANKET opinions of all LEOs. I think Techres had it right in saying that a constant drumbeat IN EITHER DIRECTION destroys the conversation.

What most of us are here for is a place to converse in one fashion or another. And since "Markets are Conversations" according to the Cluetrain Manifesto - it is good business to have the conversations take place here. BUT we can't kill off or smother another point of view that we may happen to disagree with. So how do we do this?

1) Techres is right about getting together - if the police have outreach to gang bangers - surely they can hang out with us much more law abiding types that like guns??? Again conversations of the friendly variety can't hurt.
2) I'm not sure that it's "LEO-bashing" that's the right target here. I think it's the application of ALL broad brush generalizations that is the core issue. It could be LEO's, or lawyers, or politicians, or [insert ethnicity here] or [insert religion or lack thereof here]. Based on that - I think that rather than saying that the "LEO" topic is off limits, we require people to be civil and confine comments to the case under discussion or a related one. It's one thing to discuss the recent case in Arizona for example. Heck we can even say that we are seeing a rash of such cases. But when we say that all LEOs are doing that sort of thing - we cross a line. I guess my thinking is that the blanket statement aspect is where things start getting crazy. And that would be true if we're talking LEO, or religion or whatever.
3) Hopefully the definition above takes care of any need we might have for defining bashing?
4) I think I also like the direction that BoR is taking, if I've got it right... you haven't won an argument if you've run the opposing side away from the conversation... you have won when you have discussed something with him/her and they walk away thinking differently and respecting your opinion whether they agree or no.... I think that that's the criteria that we need to use to measure the conversations around here. Is it designed to run people off? Or to honestly converse? That should be the yardstick when the ban hammer is on the table.

 

[Denny347]

You're right. They could choose to treat discussions involving LE with kid gloves while letting everything else slide. But then no one could ever again claim with an ounce of credibility that INGO is concerned with making sure all members feel welcome.

If they want to justify a regulation on "equality" of experience for all, then they can't very well create an environment where one group gets immunity from all scrutiny without looking like a bunch of hypocrites, can they?

That said, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. It would just be nice if rules--whatever they end up being--were made and enforced. I don't need to be talked down to or told it's raining.

This wouldn't be the first gun forum to close the politics board nor the last because adults had a hard time remaining so.

 

[dice dealer]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/40319-wts_thicker_skin_for_forum_members.html

 

[hornadylnl]

Those who clamor for the gun ony discussion ony seem to apply that to the 1 or 2 tics that they don't want allowed here. Same thing for those who only want political threads dealing with Indiana. Are we going to block non gun related advertisers as well?