Post by: Zeke on November 20, 2007, 11:00:28 AM
Example: A citizen who was driving the wrong kind of car in the wrong neighborhood. When he failed to signal early enough for a right hand turn he was boxed in and drawn down on. As he sat motionless in his car the officers screamed at him to keep his hands in sight and exit the vehicle. When he continued to remain motionless they opened fire. After fatally wounding the citizen they tazered him because "he still refused to move."
Example: An unarmed naked man who refused to come down from the top of a stopped patrol car was shot to death.
Example: A schizophrenic man was shot and killed when he ran from police after being observed urinating in the street.
Having spent several years in the military, I've come to some conclusions about the current, growing emphasis on military style training and operations for police personnel. Some characteristics and goals of military training are:
Reduction of the need to contemplate alternate courses of action when presented with a possible threat.
Encouragement of speedy, instinctual responses to perceived threats.
Development of an "us versus them" view of the world, with any "them" being considered a potential threat and expendable.
Personal survival as a primary goal.
I would submit to you that these goals of military training are necessary for soldiers to function on a battlefield, where any unknown is assumed to be a threat until neutralized, and survival of combat forces is paramount.
This is a set of goals, however, that are IMHO incompatible with the functioning of a peace officer on our public streets. What do we want from our police officers? I submit to you it's more like this:
Citizens are innocent until proven guilty. This is directly opposite of the mindset needed for a soldier to survive on a battlefield.
Put the lives of the public before the lives of police officers. Err on the side of preserving innocent life, rather than shoot first and ask questions later. Police officers know or should know when they sign on to the job that they will be called upon to risk their lives.
Most situations can be resolved without lethal force if effective communications can be established. Repeatedly screaming "GET ON THE GROUND!" does not establish any kind of effective communications.
Officers need to stop and think before acting. Things are often not what they appear to be when dealing with the public, and many of these tragedies could be avoided with a few seconds of rational thought before pulling a trigger.
Finally, I have to observe that when you've been trained to respond to every situation with a hammer, every situation begins, at first glance, to look like a nail.
Post by: Phyphor on November 20, 2007, 12:49:13 PM
Now, an obviously naked man is pretty much certainly NOT going to have any deadly weapons on him that aren't in his hands. So, tazering him might be more appropriate, if he behaves in an obviously hostile manner.
And yea, a felony stop for a traffic violation is just plain bullshit. I can understand it being the wrong neighborhood, and I can even understand the officer calling for backup. But unless the man completely failed to stop for the cops, I just don't see why he had to be 'boxed in' like that. If he did fail to pull over, then as much as I hate to say it, he definitely made a bad move.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 02:28:41 PM
i missed that event where/when did it happen?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 03:17:47 PM
Post by: vernal45 on November 20, 2007, 06:05:22 PM
Post by: Zeke on November 20, 2007, 08:14:42 PM
Do you have sources for any of these events?
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/perezshooting.html
http://fkaady.blogspot.com/2005/10/witnesses-describe-police-shooting.html
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/chasse.html
The last case was not a shooting case. I was mistaken about that fact. The man was beaten to death by the police. But that doesn't change the point of my post, nor the anything about the other two cases.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 08:32:54 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 08:43:26 PM
William J. Bergin, a Sandy, Oregon police officer and David. E. Willard, a Clackamas County deputy, arrived at the scene and attempted to subdue Kaady. When Kaady resisted, the officers next attempted to handcuff him, then used a taser. Kaady ultimately climbed a patrol car and appeared poised to jump Officer Bergin; at this point, he was shot seven times and later pronounced dead at the scene.
Eyewitness accounts of the incident are split, with some individuals outraged that the officers used deadly force, and others convinced that the officers acted appropriately. An subsequent internal investigation ultimately cleared the officers of any misconduct.
from wikki
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 08:49:12 PM
Post by: Zeke on November 21, 2007, 10:28:58 AM
those were sources sorta and there is a possibility they aren't serving their own agenda could you give anythat aren't advocacy groups or blogs?
Try either the archives of "The Oregonian" newspaper online, or the KATU web page. Both should have realtively unbiased reportage of these incidents. The sources cited don't differ on the material facts.
Post by: Zeke on November 21, 2007, 10:33:09 AM
and what do any of these cases have to do with swat?
SWAT teams are where I believe the military style training started for police officers. Now that style training has bled over into all areas of law enforcement, IMHO. I think that's why we are seeing a huge increase in the "shoot first and ask questions later" police shooting incidents here in the Portland area. I have to believe it's not isolated to this area though.
Post by: Zeke on November 21, 2007, 10:39:06 AM
Fouad Kaady (January 8, 1978 September 8, 2005) was killed after a car accident in Portland, Oregon. Fouad slammed his car into two others before crashing his vehicle. Kaady was badly burned upon emerging from the vehicle. Although Kaady's family claims that a gas can in the vehicle exploded in the final crash, causing his burns and his erratic behavior, a subsequent investigation concluded that there had been no fire inside the vehicle.
William J. Bergin, a Sandy, Oregon police officer and David. E. Willard, a Clackamas County deputy, arrived at the scene and attempted to subdue Kaady. When Kaady resisted, the officers next attempted to handcuff him, then used a taser. Kaady ultimately climbed a patrol car and appeared poised to jump Officer Bergin; at this point, he was shot seven times and later pronounced dead at the scene.
Eyewitness accounts of the incident are split, with some individuals outraged that the officers used deadly force, and others convinced that the officers acted appropriately. An subsequent internal investigation ultimately cleared the officers of any misconduct.
from wikki
William J. Bergin, a Sandy, Oregon police officer and David. E. Willard, a Clackamas County deputy, arrived at the scene and attempted to subdue Kaady. When Kaady resisted, the officers next attempted to handcuff him, then used a taser. Kaady ultimately climbed a patrol car and appeared poised to jump Officer Bergin; at this point, he was shot seven times and later pronounced dead at the scene.
Eyewitness accounts of the incident are split, with some individuals outraged that the officers used deadly force, and others convinced that the officers acted appropriately. An subsequent internal investigation ultimately cleared the officers of any misconduct.
from wikki
An unarmed, naked man "was shot seven times and later pronounced dead at the scene." What would have been wrong with calling for backup instead? Are we saying that there's no way to control an unarmed naked man?
"An subsequent internal investigation ultimately cleared the officers of any misconduct." Because they were found to have followed approved procedures they were presumably trained to follow (shooting an unarmed naked man who threatens them).
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 21, 2007, 01:50:23 PM
and in my experience you were much more likely to get shot "back in the day" to say nothin of getting serious stick time
Post by: armchair warrior on November 23, 2007, 03:38:42 PM
I know theres a big difference with the way cops looked
and acted when I was younger than now.
Back then they acted like sheriff Andy Taylor= your friend.
Now they look/act like M.P.s=You do something wrong?
I don't know,maybe I'm getting old.
Post by: ilbob on November 26, 2007, 06:02:07 AM
Now it is all about force. you screw with us and we will use whatever level of force we feel is acceptable (to us) to force you to comply with whatever we say. It isn't really that way today either, but many police departments seem to focus on being bigger and badder every day.
Post by: K Frame on November 26, 2007, 06:06:45 AM
Post by: vernal45 on November 26, 2007, 07:33:17 PM
Quote
Now they look/act like M.P.s
NOThe look and act like want to be MP's. MP school, as far as I have heard, still gives healthy courses on civil rights within the UCMJ. Cops today are pathetic. I say that, being a former cop. I dont really blame the bad cops, they just get away with what the good ones will allow. I blame the good cops for circling the blue wagons and protecting the bad ones. There is a more militant attitude with cops, good and bad, and that does not bode well for the citizen. Gone are the days of helpful cops.
Post by: Zeke on November 26, 2007, 07:55:30 PM
Post by: Bogie on November 26, 2007, 08:57:20 PM
So screw it. I'll pitch the stuff.
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 02:21:56 AM
... in three out of three instances, I've felt like I was being treated like a lowlife.
Yep, you're one of the "little people." Pathetic, isn't it? On the bright side, they didn't tase you...
Post by: Chris on November 27, 2007, 05:03:34 AM
So, we look at this thread, which states that all cops are anti-people, shoot-first-and -ask-questions-later, wanna be Rambos. So, that would include the police officer who serves as a den leader in my son's Cub Scout pack. That would include the officer who volunteers with me at teen events to teach the dangers of dumb driving by young drivers. That would include the police officer who was invited to be the graduation speaker by a high school class because of all the contact they had with him as a DARE officer. That would also include the police officer who volunteers as a football coach at the school where he's a resource officer. And also the trooper who suffered first and second degree burns on his hands, arms, and face while pulling a car seat with an infant strapped inside out of a burning minivan.
Yeah, I know there are bad cops. Just like there are bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad mothers, bad IT people, etc. I've known a few bad cops. I've prosecuted a few bad cops. Some are still incarcerated.
BUt, I think we do ourselves a big injustice when we start this kind of attack on anyone who wears a badge.
Post by: Zeke on November 27, 2007, 01:25:33 PM
Post by: Thor on November 27, 2007, 01:54:20 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on November 27, 2007, 04:06:55 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 27, 2007, 04:20:17 PM
Post by: vernal45 on November 27, 2007, 08:55:03 PM
Quote
So, that would include the police officer who serves as a den leader in my son's Cub Scout pack. That would include the officer who volunteers with me at teen events to teach the dangers of dumb driving by young drivers. That would include the police officer who was invited to be the graduation speaker by a high school class because of all the contact they had with him as a DARE officer. That would also include the police officer who volunteers as a football coach at the school where he's a resource officer. And also the trooper who suffered first and second degree burns on his hands, arms, and face while pulling a car seat with an infant strapped inside out of a burning minivan.
Yes. It does include all of the above. The mindset today is militant. Intimidate, dominate and control. I, as I have said before, blame the "good cops" for not policing the bad. Used to, I would (and have) stopped to aid police officers. Not anymore. You can get your a$$ whooped or worse on the side of the road. I could not care less.
Also, I could not care less what the "anti's" claim. You see, the 2A is anti government. It is a 4th branch of government, straight to the people. So that we may overthrow a bad government, sounds pretty anti government to me. If an anti wants to think me a militia type, go for it. I am really past caring about how an anti thinks.
Post by: Bogie on November 27, 2007, 11:01:16 PM
I _hate_ training days at my local club. PRIVATE club that we let 'em shoot on. They give you the evil eye, and act like you're (a) a criminal; and (b) don't know squat, even though you can outshoot 'em...
The younger ones also grew up with video games... Why shoot once, if you can dump the magazine and reload? For that matter, why bother to try to talk the drunk guy down from the tree? Gravity'll do the job....
Post by: SteveS on November 28, 2007, 03:06:19 AM
The younger ones also grew up with video games... Why shoot once, if you can dump the magazine and reload? For that matter, why bother to try to talk the drunk guy down from the tree? Gravity'll do the job....
This mindset has been around longer than video games, so I don't see the connection. Besides, I am very stingy with my ammo when I play Call of Duty 4.
Post by: Chris on November 28, 2007, 03:47:11 AM
Yes. It does include all of the above. The mindset today is militant. Intimidate, dominate and control. I, as I have said before, blame the "good cops" for not policing the bad. Used to, I would (and have) stopped to aid police officers. Not anymore. You can get your a$$ whooped or worse on the side of the road. I could not care less.
Also, I could not care less what the "anti's" claim. You see, the 2A is anti government. It is a 4th branch of government, straight to the people. So that we may overthrow a bad government, sounds pretty anti government to me. If an anti wants to think me a militia type, go for it. I am really past caring about how an anti thinks.
[/quote]
Well, I guess we'll just chalk this one up to a case of "agree to disagree", because I no more blame the good cops for the behavior of bad cops than I do any other field or occupation. Blaming all law enforcement officers for the bahavior of thr boorish is like blaming me because of the behavior of an amublance chaser suing anyone for any reason.
And, I do agree with you that I don't care what anti's think, but I seriously do care what theaverage person thinks. If we give ammunition to the anti's, that may sway more people to their side, and expand reasonable restrictions. Heck, for that matter, if the SCOTUS rules that the 2A is an individual right, I can see the anti's start rallying the troops for a constitutional convention/amendment to eliminate the 2A, calling it an outdated throwback to a time whan there were no police to keep you safe, etc., etc. But that's way off topic here.
Another thought...with many of the posts I see around here talking about how bad the police are, and how they abuse their power, etc., do we wonder why some might develop an us against them attitude? I see it here in court all the time, where parents are teaching kids that cops are people to be avoided, that they are nothing but trouble, etc. I've been to parties with cop friends, and as soon as anyone learns of their occupation, it's like they have the plague. People stop talking to them, stand off, like they are afraid that anything they say is going to result in them being investigated or charged. It's a two way street.
Post by: RocketMan on November 28, 2007, 05:10:27 AM
<<Deleted this section because I rethought things.>>
And just last night in Corvallis, OR, my wife misunderstood the hand signals of a cop directing traffic at an intersection closed because of a traffic accident a half-mile further down the road.
She gets pulled over by another cop, and instead of being asked in a reasonable tone why she went the wrong way, gets screamed at. To her credit, she maintained an even strain, and the tasers stayed in their holsters.
She asked the cop for directions around the road closure as she was unfamiliar with the area, but he refused to lower himself to the level of public servant and she was forced to return home.
My respect for cops is pretty much gone.
Post by: vernal45 on November 28, 2007, 10:34:19 AM
Quote
with many of the posts I see around here talking about how bad the police are, and how they abuse their power, etc., do we wonder why some might develop an us against them attitude? I see it here in court all the time, where parents are teaching kids that cops are people to be avoided, that they are nothing but trouble, etc. I've been to parties with cop friends, and as soon as anyone learns of their occupation, it's like they have the plague. People stop talking to them, stand off, like they are afraid that anything they say is going to result in them being investigated or charged. It's a two way street.
You are damn right it is a 2 way street. The reason people avoid cops and teach their young ones to do the same is becasue of the bad cops that will turn your life inside out in a matter of minutes and the good ones that let them get by with it. If you want a taste of the mind set of todays badge wearing citizens, just visit coptalk on the Austrian plastic pistol talk site. If you think the chatter that goes on there is acceptable, then I hope you do not wear a badge.
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2007, 04:20:21 AM
How about those Browns?
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on November 29, 2007, 04:27:01 AM
You mean Ed and Eliane?
Just kidding.
Post by: roo_ster on November 29, 2007, 06:19:32 AM
...where parents are teaching kids that cops are people to be avoided, that they are nothing but trouble, etc...
I work in an industry requiring a security clearance and have been drug tested as a matter of policy for years. Also, I have regularly worked with Fed-level security & investigative types.
Despite my personal squeaky-cleanness, I severely limit my interaction with LEOs (outside of work) with the exception of buddies from way back. I will teach my kids to mostly avoid LEOs and have taught my wife to do so, as well.
The probability and consequences of an adverse outcome with LEOs, nowadays, is too great to counsel them otherwise. One screwy LEO in a bad mood can put my career and livelihood at risk. One screwy LEO can ruin a kid's dreams with an arrest.
In my book, LEOs are as George Washington describes government in general:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
----George Washington
BTW, I work under the assumption that most LEOs are decent folks who would not go out of their way to wreak havoc. The consequences of one of the not-so-decent LEOs wreaking havoc are too large to risk more interaction than absolutely necessary.
Who is responsible?
In my industry, I AM RESPONSIBLE if a colleague does the wrong thing, security-wise. It has been made clear that I am supposed to counter, correct, or report such behavior or attitudes. Letting them be is not an option and can get me fired and/or prosecuted. I have had to report colleagues who did not do the right thing, for whatever reason. It does not make me popular, but it does fulfill my responsibilities.
Given the above, I am less sympathetic than I might be to the plight of the majority of LEOs who are not, themselves, actively causing the problem. They, like I, observe their colleagues and can see what is going on.
Post by: seeker_two on November 29, 2007, 06:34:15 AM
I did carry a badge as a prosecuting attorney. I prosecuted bad cops, with the help of good cops. maybe that's why i have a different view of things. Obviously, I'm in the minority around here, so I'll just let it go, and move on to anothe topic...
Typically, there are three types of cops:
1. the bad cops who use their badge, equipment, and "authority" to assert their "superiority" over "civilians" (...and do I ever HATE the use of that term...) to bully their way through a shift, Constitution be dam**d.
2. the good cops who don't, but let #1 get away with it.
3. the good cops who don't and try correct #1 & #2.
I'm glad you were able to work with #3...they're a dying breed. But #2 is the biggest group, and #1 is growing by the day. And that scares & saddens me....
Quote
How about those Browns?
They're OK....I prefer home fries, myself....
Post by: vernal45 on November 29, 2007, 10:46:59 AM
3 kinds of people want to be LEO's.
1. Bullies, so that they can continue to bully others.
2. The bullied. So that they can finally bully other people and get back at society.
3. These folks really do not want to be LEO's. They want to be Peace Officers and make a difference in their corner of the world. The 3rd group is the smallest group.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 29, 2007, 10:58:59 AM
...where parents are teaching kids that cops are people to be avoided, that they are nothing but trouble, etc...
Despite my personal squeaky-cleanness, I severely limit my interaction with LEOs (outside of work) with the exception of buddies from way back. I will teach my kids to mostly avoid LEOs and have taught my wife to do so, as well.
The probability and consequences of an adverse outcome with LEOs, nowadays, is too great to counsel them otherwise. One screwy LEO in a bad mood can put my career and livelihood at risk. One screwy LEO can ruin a kid's dreams with an arrest.
I agree with that sentiment. There are too many incidents of good, law-abiding having their day, weekend, or possibly life ruinined because some cops don't know California's complicated firearms laws, and decide to arrest/seize first and research the issue later. And actually, it sounds to me that they never bother to research it even afterwords. Meanwhile the (usually former) gunowner is faced with the choice, after the prosecutor looks up the law, of giving up their gun in return for a dismissal, because its cheaper than fighting it, even though both the prosecutor and gun owner know the case is BS. I even heard a gunshop owner relay how younger cops, while buying their service pistols from him, make comments to him along the lines of, "Good business for you is bad for us." The NRA says the vast majority of police are pro-gun, but I don't know if that is the case here. Anytime you let a LEO in California know that you are transporting a firearm in your vehicle, you are required by law to let him check that it is stored properly if he wants to see it. We have discussions on CalGuns.net on how to make the cop think you don't have any guns without technically lieing to him. In my opinion, any law-abiding gun owner in California who doesn't fear the police is a fool.
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2007, 05:00:29 PM
Imagine being in a job where you only deal with tragedy and unpleasantness every day. Every time you have to do your job, it's because there's a problem needs fixin'. On many of those occassions, you migt find yourself facing danger to yourself. Many times, it's potentially deadly. Add to that the sheer negativity you draw from many people solely from doing your job (person issued a ticket, etc.) Now, stack on top of that the fact that many people (see above) teach their children to stay away from you...that you are dangerous and to be avoided. Not because of you as a person. Not because of your beliefs. Just because of your job.
That is why I could never be an LEO, and yet why I do support the good ones.
Post by: Bogie on November 29, 2007, 05:50:15 PM
"Sir, there's no way I would ever carry anything illegal in my vehicle. And no, you can't just look, because my sister the lawyer says I should always make you get a warrant."
Post by: seeker_two on November 30, 2007, 01:53:03 AM
http://www.itcinstitute.com/display.aspx?id=4371
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/NEWS02/710170400/0/NEIGHBORS
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Prank.calls.swatting.2.598464.html
A bully-boy LEO attitude just makes them more apt to fall for these things....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 30, 2007, 02:16:48 AM
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
Post by: vernal45 on November 30, 2007, 03:17:56 AM
Circle them blue wagons. I blame each and every officer involved in the Peterson affair. You are all guilty of Murder on this.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9LSLrzFQGStXb1io5FdErAtFFKgD8T7PDKO1
Post by: ilbob on November 30, 2007, 04:49:02 AM
This will give you a warm and fuzzy. It also is one example of todays LEO mindset. Remember 18 times in 2 years. Police were called to this house 18 times in 2 years for domestic violence. What happened? Did violent husband get jailed, no. Mrs. Peterson is missing/dead.
Circle them blue wagons. I blame each and every officer involved in the Peterson affair. You are all guilty of Murder on this.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9LSLrzFQGStXb1io5FdErAtFFKgD8T7PDKO1
Circle them blue wagons. I blame each and every officer involved in the Peterson affair. You are all guilty of Murder on this.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9LSLrzFQGStXb1io5FdErAtFFKgD8T7PDKO1
I don't just blame the cops for this kind of thing. there are elected officials who are supposed to be on duty to protect us from these kind of officers and they just plain do not do so.
Just a little more transparency into the police supervision and disciplinary systems would make a huge difference.
Post by: Len Budney on November 30, 2007, 05:23:55 AM
Just a little more transparency into the police supervision and disciplinary systems would make a huge difference.
The basic problem is that there's a monopoly supplier of police services. A monopoly always produces worse service at higher prices. Bad service in a shoe store means shoes that don't fit. Bad service in a police department means bullying, injuries, wrong people arrested, etc.The problem in either case isn't that the workers are evil (though some are, of course) but that excellence costs more and, for a monopoly, serves no purpose. So bad ones aren't weeded out; good ones aren't rewarded; mistakes aren't punished; etc. Eventually the bad or incompetent ones are running wild, and the good ones are listless and despondent.
--Len.
Post by: vernal45 on November 30, 2007, 05:39:57 AM
Quote
Just a little more transparency into the police supervision and disciplinary systems would make a huge difference.
I agree 100%. But, sadly, there are 2 laws; a law for you and me, and a law for those who weare badges.
Post by: Tallpine on November 30, 2007, 06:39:12 AM
I do trust peace officers
The sheriff of our neighboring county (we are 2 miles from the county line) is a good example. Just yesterday I heard on the radio traffic - he was headed to Billings for some business, came across a gentleman broke down in another county, and gave him a ride ~10 miles back the other way to the stranded motorist's home.
They have just two paid officers to cover that whole county 24/7/365.
Post by: seeker_two on November 30, 2007, 10:47:56 AM
"A bully-boy LEO attitude just makes them more apt to fall for these things.... "
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
"Dispatch, stand by on sending out an officer to investigate. We have to use these tactical black toys for something..."
Note: Not all LEO's are bully-boys. Most are good people---who stand by while the bully-boys increase in number and boldness. And the good ones are retiring fast. I'm nervous about the future of "law enforcement"...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 30, 2007, 02:05:56 PM
"A bully-boy LEO attitude just makes them more apt to fall for these things.... "
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
"Dispatch, stand by on sending out an officer to investigate. We have to use these tactical black toys for something..."
Note: Not all LEO's are bully-boys. Most are good people---who stand by while the bully-boys increase in number and boldness. And the good ones are retiring fast. I'm nervous about the future of "law enforcement"...
so thats how it works in your imagination? could you support your fantasy? maybe even dazzle us with your background and experience?
Post by: RevDisk on December 01, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
Okay, I said I was going to let it go, so I'll limit myself to one more posting.
Imagine being in a job where you only deal with tragedy and unpleasantness every day. Every time you have to do your job, it's because there's a problem needs fixin'. On many of those occassions, you migt find yourself facing danger to yourself. Many times, it's potentially deadly. Add to that the sheer negativity you draw from many people solely from doing your job (person issued a ticket, etc.) Now, stack on top of that the fact that many people (see above) teach their children to stay away from you...that you are dangerous and to be avoided. Not because of you as a person. Not because of your beliefs. Just because of your job.
That is why I could never be an LEO, and yet why I do support the good ones.
Imagine being in a job where you only deal with tragedy and unpleasantness every day. Every time you have to do your job, it's because there's a problem needs fixin'. On many of those occassions, you migt find yourself facing danger to yourself. Many times, it's potentially deadly. Add to that the sheer negativity you draw from many people solely from doing your job (person issued a ticket, etc.) Now, stack on top of that the fact that many people (see above) teach their children to stay away from you...that you are dangerous and to be avoided. Not because of you as a person. Not because of your beliefs. Just because of your job.
That is why I could never be an LEO, and yet why I do support the good ones.
I was a soldier for six years. I acknowledge I didn't have to deal with unpleasantness every day. But when things got unpleasant, things got real unpleasant. I have never taken out my stress on civilians. When I had a bad day, I made it a point to be more polite and careful. Anyone in my squad who'd take out their bad day on a civilian would be soundly punished. Most of the soldiers I've ever worked with believed they were tougher and better able to deal with problems than civilians. Logically enough, because objectively they are. I never met a single one that'd even consider using their training or position to mess with a civilian for entertainment or to blow off stress. May the Gods protect any soldier who would, because I would not and nor would any soldier I respect.
I realize it's a difficult job and I respect that. I wouldn't want to be in that job. I always wanted to protect Americans. I swore than oath.
I like many other folks, try to avoid police. I work as a security administrator and I want to keep a squeaky clean record. My beliefs are much like jfruser. I personally do not dislike police but I know that one disgruntled police officer can ruin my career. I simply do not have faith that if I somehow got the receiving end of a LEO's bad day that his coworkers bring him back in line and correct the situation. I've seen folks who got on the bad side of an LEO in a manner that did not break the law, and I saw the multitude of petty revenge tricks that LEO's have at their disposal. In basically every line of employment I've worked, I've been taught time and time again. If I see a violation of the rules, I immediately stop it. If I fail to do so, I will be punished. Harshly. I happen to agree with the philosophy.
All of those people who teach their children to fear the police, why do you think that is? For scum and criminals, it's a bit obvious. But what about the normal folks? I am very thankful you have worked with good cops. I know they are the majority. But I question if the majority of the good cops would turn in a bad one. Perhaps I am wrong, I certainly hope so. I have in the past strongly cooperated with LEO's, usually federals, that I believed to be good cops. Bad ones, I was helpful, cooperative, and stayed dumb as a post.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 01, 2007, 04:43:00 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on December 01, 2007, 04:51:40 PM
I got to work with the country D.A.R.E officer a month ago and he was a great guy, as were a couple of the game wardens that stopped by the range. Hearing them talk, they were equally as pissed off about bad cops and fully recognized that it made them all look bad.
Post by: Bogie on December 01, 2007, 05:24:14 PM
First thing that makes me worry about a cop is "Is his head shaved?" Next is "Is he wearing a high and tight?"
Ossifers: This is NOT a combat zone.
Post by: jeepmor on December 01, 2007, 11:39:47 PM
I damn near had a lady officer run over my foot for standing off the sidewalk less than 1 foot at a crosswalk. She threatened to take me to jail before I even knew what the hell I did wrong. Vicious bunch, and yes, the buzzcut is a good indicator of the chestbeating response you'll get.
Post by: Bogie on December 02, 2007, 06:19:50 AM
Post by: seeker_two on December 03, 2007, 01:34:15 AM
"A bully-boy LEO attitude just makes them more apt to fall for these things.... "
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
"Dispatch, stand by on sending out an officer to investigate. We have to use these tactical black toys for something..."
Note: Not all LEO's are bully-boys. Most are good people---who stand by while the bully-boys increase in number and boldness. And the good ones are retiring fast. I'm nervous about the future of "law enforcement"...
so thats how it works in your imagination? could you support your fantasy? maybe even dazzle us with your background and experience?
Unfortunately, this thread (and a plethora of news stories) support my "fantasy".
Why so offended with this line of thought? Something hitting too close to home?....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 03, 2007, 03:47:08 AM
"A bully-boy LEO attitude just makes them more apt to fall for these things.... "
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
how so? how is the attitude transferred to the 911 operators
"Dispatch, stand by on sending out an officer to investigate. We have to use these tactical black toys for something..."
Note: Not all LEO's are bully-boys. Most are good people---who stand by while the bully-boys increase in number and boldness. And the good ones are retiring fast. I'm nervous about the future of "law enforcement"...
so thats how it works in your imagination? could you support your fantasy? maybe even dazzle us with your background and experience?
Unfortunately, this thread (and a plethora of news stories) support my "fantasy".
Why so offended with this line of thought? Something hitting too close to home?....
could you quantify a plethora for me? especially vis a vis how it would relate to this
"Dispatch, stand by on sending out an officer to investigate. We have to use these tactical black toys for something..."
i'm not as slick i couldn't see the support for that statement . maybe its my computer cause it misses a lot. especially your response to
"maybe even dazzle us with your background and experience?"
one can only hope that this "Why so offended with this line of thought? Something hitting too close to home?...."
isn't indicative of the skill set we can expect. my experience is such that had i not retired i'd get my own page in ncic.
thats what makes me laugh when folks that i percieve as having lil real life interaction with law enforcement pontificate, its like what the guys in aa call the st patricks day and new years drunks..... amateur hour.
Post by: seeker_two on December 04, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
Congratulations on your "almost" getting a page on NCIC. You must be proud of that. I hope you've also earned the respect and admiration of non-LEO's like your neighbors, fellow church members, and others in your community. Many LEO's (esp. the younger ones) forget how important that is.....
Dazzled yet?....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 04, 2007, 01:44:16 PM
i would be dazzled by support for this statement but i susperct this desire vtoo will go unfulfilled. i wasn't aware that the swat guys could self dispatch themselves to play with their toys. doesn't work that way here. we do get higher ups trying to justify their kingdoms misusing the resource on occaision with tragic results but its not at all like you seem to imagine
nor is this "Congratulations on your "almost" getting a page on NCIC. You must be proud of that." any moron can screw up not screwing up isn't that hard either mostly a decision
now this "I hope you've also earned the respect and admiration of non-LEO's like your neighbors, fellow church members, and others in your community." is a lil harder but not as difficult as some would make it seem
Post by: Bogie on December 04, 2007, 02:57:16 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 04, 2007, 03:14:15 PM
thats how you end up with swat serving warrants and a dead optometrist.
the more "missions" run the more men/money he gets the bigger his kingdom is
Post by: seeker_two on December 05, 2007, 01:43:29 AM
bingo to the man with the stache and glasses!!
thats how you end up with swat serving warrants and a dead optometrist.
the more "missions" run the more men/money he gets the bigger his kingdom is
thats how you end up with swat serving warrants and a dead optometrist.
the more "missions" run the more men/money he gets the bigger his kingdom is
...and the more news time you get....
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-pokerraid_19met.ART0.North.Edition1.434471a.html
http://community.myfoxdfw.com/blogs/Nick-Charles/2007/12/03/Dallas_SWAT_Raids_VFW_Poker_Game_Video
SWAT teams assaulting a VFW charity event?....