Connecticut Bureaucrats Battle After Man Declines to Show Gun Permit


Open carry
formatted dad/Flickr

If you need any further evidence of the stupidity of turning a right that you can exercise at will into a privilege that requires official permission and paperwork, cast your eyes on the case of Scott Lazurek and the bureaucratic battle being waged over his gun permit. In a dispute that a Connecticut prosecutor describes as a "nothing case," Lazurek was arrested because he apparently got sick of papers-please hassles and declined to show his permit to openly carry a gun to West Haven police. Now one Connecticut government agency is suing another, and Lazurek has become a cause celebre for gun rights advocates, as well as a lightning rod for bureaucratic idiocy.

It all started on June 2, 2013, when Lazurek, a security guard, and another man walked along the West Haven boardwalk with holstered guns on their hips. Two security guards from a competing employer police officers stopped the men and demanded to see their pistol permits. Lazurek refused, and was arrested. Among his possessions the government employed security guards found his pistol permit.

When the court dismissed the case a month later, prosecutor John Barney himself downplayed Lazurek's alleged offense.

"It kind of was a nothing case. He had no record. He's a security guard. All it boiled down to was he had a valid permit to carry. There were no issues; he wasn't doing anything wrong with it. When police officers approached him and said to show it, he was just stubborn with letting them see it. So they arrested him on interfering because he was giving them a hard time."

The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, so it took the state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners until July of this year to hold a hearing on the matter and until August 1 to give him back his permit.

Remember, Lazurek had threatened nobody. He was arrested only for failing to produce a piece of paper which legally allowed him to do as part of his job what the people arresting him were also doing as part of their jobs—carrying a pistol openly.

So, a year-plus later, he got his permit back.

That pissed off the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. That agency objects that Lazurek is not a "suitable person" to be allowed a pistol permit because "at the hearing, Lazurek testified that gven the same set of circumstances he would respond in the same fashion and would again refuse to enable officers to ascertain whether he was legally carrying his weapon." Or so they say in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection against the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and Lazurek.

Hey, Lazurek didn't show due deference to competing security guards, and he insisted that carrying a gun is a right—he's definitely not a Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection kind of guy.

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is raising money to help Lazurek, who is a member. But watching two Connecticut state agencies battle in court (with taxpayer money) would just be good sport—if their tussle didn't involve granting permission to people to exercise their rights.

NEXT: Truth or Gaffe? Biden Admits U.S. Faces No Existential Threat From Terrorism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "So they arrested him on interfering because he after they was giving them gave him a hard time because FUCK YOU THAT'S WHY."

  2. Wow. SO many enemies and bad guys in this case.

    Violent revolution is coming. Not sure I want to be alive to see it. Maybe the mob will take care of it.

    Long as the fucking bureaucrats go down, it will be worth it.

    Fuck these fucking fucks. FUCK!

    1. You really think so? I don't believe we've got it in us anymore, as a people. We'll complain endlessly, but I think we'll let the government do whatever it wants. We've become so infantilized and pacified, we'd likely demonize anyone who resorted to the threat of the state with violence, even when necessary.

      1. Everyone's got it in them, but it's rare for a violent revolt until the general population has nothing to lose. we're pretty far from that right now.

  3. What's the deal with CT being so anti-gun? I know it's a bit of a mashup state as far a politics, but seems like CT is always in the news for something - i.e. gun registrations, attempted confiscations, this article, etc.

    1. What's the deal with Oprah? She's fat, she's thin....pick a weight and go with it!

    2. "

      LessIsMore|10.3.14 @ 3:18PM|#

      What's the deal with CT being so anti-gun?"

      People who leave NYC and want to take it with them?

    3. What's the deal with cancer?

    4. What's the deal with CT being so anti-gun?

      A lady I know who's from CT says the state is little more than a suburb of NYC.

  4. PS Freedom means asking permission and following orders. What this asshole doesn't get about that, I don't know.

    1. And in any case it means showing your betters proper deference, peasant.

  5. I'm glad J.D. Pointed out what many of us have been saying in the comments. A competing security agency wouldn't have attempted such a thing as they may not have made it home after trying to detain someone for rightfully carrying a firearm.

    The police employed by the state get their funding through violence, not voluntarism. It's no wonder why they use violence against others in their day to day attempts at stripping away the rights of individuals. They are shielded from consequences, and instead their risky behavior, (that would put them out of a job, or worse) is actually rewarded with awards and medals.

    If they really screw up, they are awarded a desk job while the victims are forced to pay their salaries. Some even go back out on the streets thanks to their qualified immunity.

    1. A competing security agency wouldn't have attempted such a thing as they may not have made it home after trying to detain someone for rightfully carrying a firearm.

      Or they would have attempted it, just with overwhelming force.

  6. No matter if he wins or loses, this man will have made one or another set of bureaucrats look bad. He better be planning to move far away from any area over which either has any jurisdiction.

  7. The police should not be allowed to ask you anything unless you are doing something wrong. For example they can not pull a car over just to see if you have a drivers license. this is no better than stop and frisk which should not be allowed ever anywhere but since that ship has already sailed.

    1. The police should not be allowed to ask you anything unless you are doing something wrong.

      Then they'll just lie and say someone called 911 about a man having a holstered gun visible.

      1. Which is legal. This is kind of like calling 911 screaming "There are four guys in the park playing Frisbee Golf!!!"

      2. Or they'll act like they're at WalMart and shoot him.

      3. They won't need to lie. Open carry in CT is legal but if you do it police will stop you because someone will call them to complain about it either cuz they are ignorant or don't care. Even a lot of the cops are unaware that open carry is legal here in Ct and will arrest people for it and get away with it with little more than a wrist slap from the permit board.

    2. Wasn't that sort of the takeaway from the Hibol case a few years back? Yes, the cops can demand ID, IFF they actually suspect you of something, but NOT simply because they feel entitled to hassle anyone at will.

  8. More proof Dunphy is not Dunphy

    1. Look, cops just want to be shown respect by the people over whome they're exercising capricious violence. Just muddle through the anxiety-inducing lesson in abject helplessness, hand over your documentation, and be glad they're only confiscating your property and not arresting and/or ventilating you.

      1. It's not like the cops actually want to get some peasant's stench on their costume by having to deal with them.

    2. He's not so surprisingly absent from this thread.

  9. But watching two Connecticut state agencies battle in court (with taxpayer money) would just be good sport?if their tussle didn't involve granting permission to people to exercise their rights the losing agency were to be abolished.

    1. Blunderdome: Two bureaucrats enter, one receives a budget increase.

      1. The loser, of course. Failure is success.

  10. Two security guards from a competing employer police officers stopped the men and demanded to see their pistol permits. Lazurek refused, and was arrested. Among his possessions the government employed security guards found his pistol permit.

    I offer a sincere thank you for describing the situation as it is, Mr Tuccille. People need to understand that every job exists ostensibly to produce some economic good, it's just that some economic actors get to play by different rules, like being able to force consumers to buy or at least pay for their product.

  11. I don't see anything in the article as to what the actual state law/precedent says about whether a Cop can or cannot stop an open carrier

    Here in my state they ABSOLUTELY cannot and I'd be the first to sue if I was hassled for open carrying although I almost never carry off duty in any manner

    I am a member of a open Carry Washington which has helped advocate for open Carry acceptance among the public and law-enforcement and there's a lot of good in general

    Back in the day there have been a lot of officers unlawfully stopping open Carriers in Washington until Roll call training was implemented to correct the problem

    I loved the silly Stuff in the article trying to equate cops with security guards

    The great American people that make my job so rewarding don't see it that way as all the polls prove

    One very rewarding example of how much the public likes us is how many times when we finish a meal in uniform on duty we get up to pay and are told by the waitress that some anonymous person already paid for our meals and said something like thank you for your service

    Unlike gratuities which we cannot take here there's nothing we can do when it's already anonymously been paid for and it is a surprisingly common occurrence

    I always try to anonymously pay when I see a military member and it's nice to know the public around here holds us in such high regard and that's probably the reason why no reason bigot could ever make me feel bad

    Booya American public!


    1. Polls also show that the American people prefer tyranny and socialism to freedom and prosperity.

      The majority of Americans voted for Obama TWICE, Boooosh TWICE, Pelosi, Ried, Boehnor, Mccain, Graham, Boxer, Clintons, etc.

      If winning the praise of the same crowd fills you with pride, then you are clearly one of them.

    2. Nice speech-to-text program you got there, Tony-NG, what with capitalization and no periods.

      But you're wearing thin too.

      1. I'm going to go with Tulpa, but Mary is still a possibility.

        1. I don't know who it really is, but I don't think it's the old dunphy. On the other hand, it doesn't matter, because it's fun twisting his nuts over his phony speech to text app being responsible for his wordy posts.

          1. Phony app are you really this stupid?

            Every single smart phone out there pretty much and spirit number of desktops allow you to use voice to text

            This is the kind of idiocy I typically expect from moronic bigots and that you amazingly even care about disputing

            If you think I am typing this shit instead of talking into my cell phone more power to you it doesn't affect me negatively in anyway it just reinforces that I am dealing with morons who will argue for the sake of arguing

            Heck a substantial percentage of officers I work with are now dictating our reports

            1. When I worked for Maui PD Wayback in the day we actually had a dictation system where you could call in the narrative to reports from anywhere you could get to a phone

              It was such a cost saving efficient and beneficial program it's amazing that it existed in a government agency

              Our agency doesn't even teach touch typing when it would save them an immense amount of money in the amount of time we spend writing reports and what they have to pay us

              We are getting $75/hr or more for overtime when we are writing reports

              Regardless, a fellow officer turned me on to Dragon and I now use that or my cell phone to dictate all my police reports

              It's fucking sweet

              You should be happy that it saving the taxpayers money too

              Again if our department cared about efficiency they would distribute the program train us in it and mandate it's use which would cut down overtime substantially but they would never be that progressive

              Instead of paying out $225 for 3 hrs overtime they could easily cut that by about 50%

              Copocrats will be copocrats


              1. Seattle PD's recent over time abuses are well documented. I guess it's not a big deal when you heroes engage in time sheet fraud, huh?

                1. Overtime abuses exist in every industry where there is overtime

                  And of course I've mentioned several times I think Seattle PD is NOT a particularly good POLICE appointment period

                  but yes thank you for sharing with me with the astounding News that some police officers somewhere abused over time

                  Yes that is truly shocking to me as somebody who has actually complained myself about abuse of overtime

                  Assuming these allegations are true of course since I haven't looked at them in particular it would absolutely 100% not surprise me that some police officers have abused over time

                  It has always happened and it will always happen


                  1. Being a LEO/"public Servant" is in no way part of an industry.

            2. Yeah I really are stupid enough to believe you use a any app, phone or not, which can capitalize starts of sentences without a period to end the previous, or convert some words to all caps, and various other tricks which show post-conversion editing.

              I guess the lack of periods while adding other punctuation actually makes you hip and edgy and everything else which cops aren't.

              But the responses are better than Tony, who has been wearing thin.

              1. Don't forget that he always claimed to work on Oahu before, not Maui.

        2. I felt obligated to buy Dunphy's meal since I wiped my ass with his sandwich

    3. Lies make baby Jesus cry.

    4. Re: Free food. Um yeah, I'm sure it happened once to someone somebody you know knows.

    5. once again you are confusing the local police department with the US military.

  12. If you need any further evidence of the stupidity of turning a right that you can exercise at will into a privilege that requires official permission and paperwork,

    The opening made me think this was going to be about gay marriage . . . .

  13. I thought a concealed carry permit was bad enough. What kind of hell-hole requires a permit for open carry?

    Oh, CT. That kind of hell-hole.

    1. The hellhole that produced me.

      1. Requiring a permit to open carry is bad enough but some states allow officers to stop a person just because they are open carrying and confirm they are lawfully carrying

        That's just as bad as allowing cops to randomly stop a motor vehicle to check if the person is lawfully licensed

        Actually it's worse in the first case because carrying is a civil right and constitutionally protected and driving is a privilege

        It amazes me that legislators think it's okay in those states to give cops of the authority to make a stop of a person merely because they are exercising the rights

        1. That's CA's stance. Fair game to inspect for loaded status (it's not legal to carry loaded) and There's so many gun free zones that you have to follow a thin line to skirt them all.

          BTW, you misstated something. Driving is TREATED as a privilege, not actually a privilege. Authoritarian Fruedian slip, obviously.

          1. No actually I believe that is a statement of fact which is why I am stating it as I do

            There are some people who believe otherwise and I respectfully disagree

            Due to its connection to what is a right which is the right to travel I understand the arguments for it being considered a right

            However I consider that it is a human invented activity that when engaged in especially if engaged in recklessly or otherwise improperly can cause serious injury or death quite easily and as a matter of fact is the single most dangerous thing the average person does on any given day

            1. You are quite wrong. The fourth leading cause of death is accidents. Fourth. ALL accidents. Motor vehicle accidents account for 1/7th of accident related deaths. The other 6/7ths are way more dangerous, as is eating, because it contributes to the number 1 cause (heart disease)

              Driving is relatively safe. If we could calculate the amount of driving done by everyone and compare to the death rate, odds of dying behind the wheel are incredibly small.

              At any rate, the methods we use to regulate driving and improve the safety are deeply flawed. The majority of traffic enforcement is geared towards either revenues or a gateway to investigate other crimes. It's B.S. basically. Licensing is a joke, mandatory insurance is failing miserably, you name it and our policies for road safety are a huge failure. It's only because of technological advancements in car performance that accidents are becoming rarer.

              1. Driving is 80% safer than it was at the peak but you are not understanding how statistics work

                Again for the average person on an average day driving is the single most dangerous activity they engage in , that is fact

                If you doubt this then please tell me what the most dangerous activity the average person does on any given day is

                Don't give me some bullshit answer like eating because unless you were talking about choking dying of heart disease is not dying from a specific activity.

                Driving is an activity.

                heart disease is a disease

                I speak carefully for a good reason

                I did not say that driving is the number one cause of death I said that for an average person, it is the most dangerous activity they do

                Put it here:

                Tell me what activity the average person does on a given day that is more dangerous than driving


                1. Leading motor vehicle accidents (which includes motorcycles and boat and airplanes) is unintentional poisoning. Therefore, handling dangerous chemicals is more dangerous than driving.

                  Unintentional falls barely trails motor vehicles, So close that it could flip easily.

                  Using acetone is not a privilege (yet, although it might be in my state, CA) either is ladders.

                  1. Again the average person does not handle dangerous chemicals in the course of a day

                    You are doing what people always do when they are wrong and can't admit it

                    Again please tell me what activity the average person does on a given day that is more dangerous than driving

                    Jesus Christ just use your common sense it's hard to find a person who hasn't had a friend or relative hurt or killed in a motor vehicle accident and for so many of those people that's the only death they know of a part from old-age or cancer etc.

                    Again what activity does an average person do on any given day that is more dangerous than driving

                    There is none

                    Notes that even in locations where a substantial number of people spend a lot of time in the ocean the risks are still lower

                    1. Go to the CDC website and look at the actual number of deaths caused by unintentional poisoning, compared to motor vehicle accidents. More actual people die from poisoning than driving.

                      IF we assume you are correct (which I do not) that people rarely handle chemicals (like bleach, acetone, gasoline, Tylenol etc.) Than this is a far more dangerous activity than driving.

                    2. Again that is obfuscating I am talking about activities

                      Plenty of causes out rank motor vehicle accidents I never said motor vehicle accidents where the highest cause of death

                      And if you want to delve into statistics you'll find it for the average person poisoning is not more risky for them than motor vehicle accidents since by the time a person rises to the age of motor vehicle accidents the risk of poisoning is very low

                      Accidental poisoning deaths are overwhelmingly skewed towards young children who don't drive in the first place and obviously are not thus the population I am referring to

                      Furthermore poisoning is not an activity and I am talking again about a specific activity

                      You cannot name an activity that the average person engages in that place them at greater risk of death then driving if so please do it

                    3. The goalpost of demographics was not part of my equation, but, since you brought it up, overwhelmingly, deaths from motor vehicle accidents are found among 16-24 y/o's. Would you support reducing licensing restrictions for 25 and up?

                      Drivers licenses are used for so many unrelated issues and have such a small impact on safety (which was the original intention) that it has become a means of exerting various forms of authority.

                      When your license can be suspended for boating while drinking, somethings terribly wrong. Boating has nothing to do with driving and requires no license. How about child support or failure to pay petty fines?

                    4. Meh... Is there a statistical correlation between BUI and DUI that supports that law? If so it shows a propensity for driving a vehicle when under the influence. Plausible at least.

                      Now the CA law that Congress passed and the Governor vetoed last year would have banned someone from getting a gun if they had two DUIs in a 10 year period (or something like that). Total BS.

                    5. There is not, that I am aware of. When challenged by a lawyer I know the DMV (who, I believe was acting independent of the legislature) capitulated immediately and reinstated the license in question. They continue to suspend everyone else, btw.

                  2. Furthermore, substantially more people who are killed in vehicle accidents are single car accidents. Like 2/3rds.

                    So the important number (how many people are killed by OTHERS who are driving falls even further. Tends to undermine the idea that we should drastically limit the ability to drive, as we have, no?

                    1. Again you are still obfuscating etc.

                      Some people here have the intellectual honesty to admit when they were wrong

                      You claimed I was wrong when I said that the average person the most dangerous activity they do in a day is driving

                      That is a true statement

                      Before I Bouncedown bunny hole tangents with you can you simply admit you were wrong?

                      It's a nice acid test for me because some people can and some people cant and for those that cant I know that engaging in discussions with them is pointless

                      As soon as you can release ego it actually makes life much more comfortable and I have no problem admitting that I am wrong such as I do here sometimes (like last week vis a vis field tests) itmeans I want something new

                    2. It's not a matter of ego. Everybody handles a compound which could kill them, in one dose or another, almost everyday. Actual deaths from poisoning outnumber deaths from motor vehicles. That clearly means that danger from poisoning is more prevalent than danger by driving. Sorry, just a fact.

                    3. Yes, buy I usually limit myself to one bottle of hard liquor per day.

                2. Actually, walking anywhere near the vicinity of a cop is the most dangerous thing a person does in a given day, since they tend to get a bit trigger happy and frequently mistake cell phones for weapons.

                  1. Yes exactly such as in New York City

                    There's a city that has 8.2 million people on any given day and substantially more than that due to commuters

                    Let's look at a recent year like 2012

                    There were a grand total of 30 people shot by police. That's not even the number killed that's the total number shot.

                    And of course just like in any year the overwhelming majority were engaged in various crimes etc. when shot

                    It truly takes the type of idiocy that I love to see here to make a statement like that

                    A randomly chosen person in NYC has a 30/8,200,000,000 chance of getting shot by police in a year (and again that's actually overstating the chance since there is more than 8.2 million service size)


                    Thank you for reinforcing my faith in the idiocy of anti-police bigots

                    1. In Los Angeles, last year, IF you were killed by a gun, you had a 1 in 10 chance of being shot by a cop.

                      50 killed by cops, 500 total. That's how statistics work.

                    2. Groovy but that's not what I was saying

                      I'm talking about the relative risk of death what's 50 divided by the population of Los Angeles?

                      Hint it's a tiny percentage

                      And of course if you're not a convicted felon if you're not engaged in various types of activities your chance is of course far far far far less because out of those 50s they are substantially skewed towards that type of person

                      For the average person whether in los Angeles or New York City there a chance of being shot what a long shot and killed by police is infinitesimally tiny

                      I am not sure what kind of point you were trying to make but it says nothing about my point which is that the risk of an average person being shot by the police is very small

                    3. The majority of hardened criminals do not fight with cops. they have no fear of prison and have long since learned that fighting with cops means rolling in dirt and nursing wounds while waiting for the bus upstate.

                      The one's who get shot were anything but crazed gunmen. Many are just retards, or kids who have little experience getting rousted. Mostly people who have yet to learn to fear cops. Furtive gestures and all that.

                      Normal people almost never get shouted at, much less at gunpoint. They tend to react in random ways. Many fail to understand the concerns of cops, because their lives don't involve deadly force and constant fear. This makes them slower to comply, and far more likely to evoke gunfire than street smart OG criminals.

                    4. "I am not sure what kind of point you were trying to make but it says nothing about my point which is that the risk of an average person being shot by the police is very small"

                      There is a problem using the population as your base case without taking into account the next level stat of innocents killed per police shooting resulting in death.

                      If we were to assume that all 500 of 500 people shot and killed by the police were innocents, then we would have a very serious problem with law enforcement, correct?

                      But, 500/3.9M (LA's population) = .01% and that example probability is very very small and it means that the chances of getting killed by a cop is very small. But, when the 1st example stat is included with the second, there is little room for celebration.

                      So, both stats are reasonable if you know what you are trying to describe and both together are even more so.


                3. Driving is 80% safer than it was at the peak but you are not understanding how statistics work

                  I love being lectured by some fucking retard with a Criminal Justice degree from East Buttfuck University, with delusions that he knows something about the law, that I don't understand how statistics work.

                  1. Personal attacks like this are usually a great sign that an idiot is getting butt hurt

                    I'm sorry. call your mama down to the basement and have her give you a blowjob or something maybe that'll make you feel better

                    Setting aside my graduate school background maybe we can engage in a classic Internet IQ contest that's so much fun

                    My point is valid and you know it which is why instead of trying to rebut them you divulge to personal attacks

                    I will restate it because truth has dignity

                    For the average person the most dangerous activity they will get involved in on a daily basis is driving a car


    2. There is no permit to open carry or conceal carry in Ct. It's just a permit to carry. It's the individuals choice how to do so. But in CT if you open carry fully expect hassles.

  14. I posted this before but it's so awesome

    Just like the media as in this case tends to uncritically report false claims of racism against cops the Reason bigots are going to automatically assume the same as well

    Even in this country that overwhelmingly supports the police naturally when people see a report like this they at least suspect there might be justification to it



    This dipshit is a firefighter and I wouldn't go as far as saying I hope you gets fired but I do hope he gets punished and asked to make an official public apology since he was so quick to make an official public complaint especially to the news

    Stuff like this is awesome because in addition to bringing about justice in this case it inspires people in other cases to at least be more likely to give cops of the benefit of the doubt

    This is exactly the sort of complaint that even if he was lucky enough to be found either exonerated or nonsustained totally tarnishes a good officers reputation and leaves a cloud of suspicion despite the fact that of course he did nothing wrong

    Without the camera it's certainly a decent possibility he would've been disciplined

    Booya body cameras!

    1. What's that slurping sound?

      1. It's the fake Dumphy catching his drool because his speech-to-text machine keeps his mouth open too much.


      Amen, brah. Body cameras sort out who was the shit head and who was within their rights. Anything that keeps both cop and citizen accountable for not spreading BS after the fact.

      1. I heartily agree

        1) when it is present,cops and those they serve (at least when they realize they are in camera) tend to behave better

        2) they very frequently allow administrators to immediately clear an officer accused of misconduct also saving a substantial amount of money in investigatory time etc., paid leave etc

        3) not only do they sometimes help prosecute people for making a false complaint they also help provide direct evidence of the crime that the officer was investigating in the first place

        4) they help punish an officer who commits misconduct

        The financial benefits are actually in my opinion quite substantial and would be reason alone to support their use

        Also there is some evidence that their presence improves officer safety leaving them less likely to be assaulted etc. L

        If I was king of the world a la Leo I would require officers to carry them

        And my prediction is they will be almost universally carried within 15 years


  15. Body camera clears officer in tragic but justified shooting.

    in the incident where three of my partners were shot ( they were in my street crime unit) at the same call it involved a person who was approaching them and refused to take his hands out of his pockets and when he finally did so, it was with a handgun

    I have been on scores of felony stops for example when I was holding people at gunpoint and in my entire career I have never been on a felony stop where somebody had to get shot.

    We are talking hundreds of people suspected of a serious crime which is why the felony stop was justified and taken into custody with no violence whatsoever because they complied to a large extent with simple commands about showing your hands

    As stats prove we take a phenomenally large number of accused felons (note, this video is not of a suspected violent felon as far as I know) accused of a serious crime into custody without incident and it's only a shockingly rare number of times when they have to shoot

    Considering the subject and the circumstances it's amazing how safe that when he stops have become but that's because of the good officer safety etc. tactics used

    The procedures work, and when somebody IS shot, Indy overwhelmingly large percentage of the time it's because they chose to engage in activity that necessitated then being shot and have only themselves to blame

    1. Certainly could have helped when your fellow officers did this:

      Those are the heroes Dunphy trains with and regularly defends around here folks.

      1. I've commented about that case at least a half dozen times but if you want my opinion since you apparently don't know it: yes the police officer engaging in misconduct. no it's not particularly egregious and I doubt there will be much of a settlement but if the guy wins a settlement more power to him

        As I have said I have benefited financially and otherwise substantially from suing the police.

        That's a large part of the reason I was absent from here for so long partially because when one is engaged in such activity you want to minimise your usage of the Internet

        If I was the guy in the Mexican piss case I would be suing the fuck out of Seattle Police department

        Again since your m don't know my position I strongly support filming the police and I strongly support seeking civil redress when appropriate


        1. ^^^ This is the same guy who justified 2 plain clothes cops who didn't ID themselves who shot a guy for simply answering his door at his home with a gun in his hand. His latest body cam kick is with full knowledge that police can turn off said devices whenever they want. They always seem to "lose" dash cam footage when it shows them acting like bullies and thugs.


    Body cameras clearing officers.

    And again from a libertarian standpoint it's a great tool because it makes it easier and thus less costly to conduct an investigation and sometimes it's almost instantaneous with the body Camera they result in a lower number of complaints especially because many people when they were told there is a video of the incident retract the complaint or don't make one

  17. You can't spell "The artist known Dunphy" without "we shit on truth".

  18. And the People of CT, in what seems like a moment of sanity, are taking a dim view on the idea of returning Gov. Malloy to his elected position.
    Keep The Sanity Flowing, and let a new broom sweep clean.

  19. More heroics from our working-class heroes

    Again in the past these incidents almost never made the news there was no video of them and no press release but now due to body cameras and in this case a firefighter helmet cam we get to see more and more of the kind of every day heroics that brave officers engage in

    In this case the cops use a ladder to save the person and in my case I ran into a building that was burning but either way this is what cops do

    Booya police heroism


    1. participants like to shit on non-cops when they're not participating in self-congraulatory circle jerks like the one cited above where Dunphy is playing pivot man.

  20. Let us not forget that the leadership of the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation and pretty much any so called gun-rights group you can name wants your Second Amendment right conditioned on having a government issued permission slip.

    And so do many of their members.

    I am not one of them.
    Charles Nichols ? President of California Right To Carry

  21. demanded to see their pistol permits


    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. - Constitution of CT

    Ah. I believe I see the problem.

  22. "Competing security guards"? You're outdoing your already high level of stupidity, Tucille.

    And I'm pretty sure this dude was allowed to see their permit to open carry, ie their police badges.

    1. Don't forget their goofy costumes, tulpa!

    2. Wow, this was some reply that explains why having a totalitarian police force, that doesn't face consequences, somehow protects liberty....while at the same time strips it away...........

      Suppose Lowes delivered an appliance, and then proceeded to ticket your car, confiscate your money because they had "probable cause" to do so, and even detained your wife for selling lemonade to others who wanted it. Then you complained and they beat you up. I'm sure you would never use Lowes again. They would probably go out of business, and many delivery folks wouldn't have made it home.

      So if one wouldn't fund such a business, then why should folks be extorted to fund a service where they have no voice or choice in the market, and can therefore punish bad economic actors? If you wish to be a slave, do so by yourself.

  23. "Jordan|10.3.14 @ 3:36PM|#
    Or they would have attempted it, just with overwhelming force."

    If they would, there are market forces which discourage warfare, which mind you is expensive. The same way individuals avoid armed homes, lobster fisherman avoid each other's lobster pots, and folks don't use overwhelming force to rob gun shows and so on everyday, Warfare is expensive, and they would face consequences for their actions against an individual.

    So because you are afraid of freedom, lets keep a totalitarian police force, that has qualified immunity which shields them from consequences, and rewards them for things that wouldn't be allowed by free individuals.... I want no part of your slavery, and others whom support real deal freedom and liberty (not some watered down nonsense) feel the same.

  24. Hey! Just because state-sponsored thugs demand that you "show them your papers" in order to exercise your constitutionally protected rights doesn't mean that you live in a police state! Right? ... Right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.