[Respond Code Three]

I do understand your concerns with the actions of rogue cops. But what I was pointing out was that in the beginning of the article it referenced that ex-cops had showed up IN SUPPORT of BUNDY. Generally when the police are bashed, the terminology is Jack Booted Thugs, holster sniffers, boot lickers, wannabes, cops and ex-cops.

What I'm wondering about though is what the FReepers who have a very negative view of cops think of the ex-cops who showed up to support Bundy. It seems that in essence, they have become ex-Jack Booted Thugs who were armed and helped face down armed presently employed Jack Booted Thugs. So, are the ex-cops who sided with Bundy still the bad guys?

[B4Ranch]

>>So, are the ex-cops who sided with Bundy still the bad guys?<<

Myself, I judge people independently, the majority of the time. If one cop screws up, he’s a jerk. When the next ten cops I have interactions with screw up in succession then I would say most cops are jerks.

>>It seems that in essence, they have become ex-Jack Booted Thugs who were armed and helped face down armed presently employed Jack Booted Thugs. <<

That depends. My first suspicion is they are infiltrators looking for Intel. Maybe after associating with them for a year or two, I might let them get close to me. If they were only a cop for one or two years and quit because of the attitude of their sargent /superiors. I would probably go easy on them.

Now if they quit after fifteen years, I’d check them out to see if they were fired or just what happened. That would seriously stink in my mind. I doubt if I would ever fully trust them even if I had a PI do a rundown on them.

[ponygirl]

I would say that the ex-cops (or even current cops, if there were any) who had shown up in support of Bundy were fulfilling their duties as “oath keepers,” ie, “protection against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That is the mission of the OathKeepers organization, and that is who was called upon during the Bundy standoff. So to answer your question, no, I don’t think those who showed up to defend the constitutional rights of an American citizen would be considered “Jack Booted Thugs,” &c…. I would say they took their oath seriously.

I am assuming from your nom de plume that you are a current or former LEO. I see the posts here on FR that are extremely critical, bordering on fixation, with regards to LEOs, and that concerns me. It must concern you a lot, since you would be the one walking around in uniform, which basically puts a target on you everywhere you go. I am just curious whether the training being received has changed recently and how that has affected those in the profession. I don’t know any cops, so I was just recounting my one experience with one which was not good. Something about the training changed that guy’s personality – it was obvious, because it happened while he was in training. Does the current training actually weed out some people who would have previously been considered good police officers, but now aren’t ones to stick around and wait to get canned or even imprisoned because he dared pull over and question a Hispanic person? That’s the kind of stuff they are dealing with in Phoenix – all the new limitations they are imposing on police because of La Raza targeting Sheriff Arpaio. I’m curious your take on all of that. And what do you think of the guys who showed up to defend Bundy? Would you consider them to have “gone rogue?”