View Full Version : "Hypermilitarized police departments are more dangerous than whatever they fight."
Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway.
The Right’s silence on the issue is vexing indeed, the admirable attempts of a few libertarians notwithstanding.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke
Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws
Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/
The baby getting a flash bang grenade thrown into it's crib is heartbreaking.
If I were chief of a local popo department I would immediately institute the following (funds allowing of course):
1) No more fatigues, no more bloused pants in boots.
2) Button-down "dress" style shirt with no sewn-on name tags. Departmental patch allowed on sleeve, all other accoutrements would be shiny badge and nameplate. Kind of an Adam-12 look.
3) All windows of cruisers would be untinted; if the state prevents regular citizens from having excessive tint then you're not special. The "intimidation" factor needs to be flushed out.
4) Long gun (AR) allowed in trunk of cruiser, otherwise it's sidearm and shotgun only for public view.
5) I would personally review any complaints of untoward behavior. Unnecessary dog shootings would be a pet peeve (yeah, I'm serious).
6) All officers would be very aware of the fact that courtesy is paramount and that yes, you do indeed work for these folks, criminals notwithstanding.
7) Officers appearing to be or reported as being a little too "gung-ho" would have their heels locked in my office the first time, suspended the next.
8) Any tac-team would be on a short leash. You're not in Fallujah or Ramadi. Warrants served by such would be triple-checked for accuracy and scrutinized for proper action.
9) If I heard the word "civilian" used in regards to the public you'd be shit-canned on the spot. It's a mindset focus, not an exercise in semantics. Eliminate the "us versus them" mentality.
An environment and/or culture change would need to be cultivated and would not happen overnight. The arrogance often associated with cops would have to be bred out, or at least made to be non-politically correct in my department. The simplest way to put it would be this: while all the criminals are citizens, all citizens are not criminals and therefore suspicion (not a healthy suspicion, the automatic type) should be applied conservatively.
Perhaps, like the DoD is often headed by someone who wasn't a military man, PD's might want to consider putting non-LEO citizens in charge. Someone rising from within the ranks with an attitude and salty chip on their shoulders would no doubt reflect that and condone it on the part of his officers.
Agree with everything posted in here. All extremely valid and good points. In before the mindless "nothing is wrong with police in this country, you guys are just police bashers" and the thread get closed down.
Agree with everything posted in here. All extremely valid and good points. In before the mindless "nothing is wrong with police in this country, you guys are just police bashers" and the thread get closed down.
The issue with these has always been leadership, and it always turns into that sort of mindless bashing if capability isn't significantly distinguished from leadership and implementation.
Great article in the Economist on this very subject.
Paramilitary Police (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers)
This "incorporating" nonsense is very concerning. First I've ever heard of such a thing.
Moose-Knuckle
06-28-14, 14:59
There has defiantly been a “militarization” of domestic law enforcement over the last several decades. What is more concerning to me however are the Executive Orders that have been signed into law by multiple Presidents across both sides of the political aisle that once enacted will suspend the Constitution and morph the United States into a perpetual Police State. The infrastructure is being put in place and when one peeks behind the curtain and learns of the COG plans that are already on the books its not hard to see where all this is going.
I ran across this just the other day (not to derail the thread on yet another MRAP discussion).
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/MRAPsByState_zps098c216b.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/MRAPsByState_zps098c216b.jpg.html)
I was in a class the other taught by one of the metro swat guys and he used the word "operator" when talking about his team mates multiple times.
It took a lot of effort to keep my opinion on that to myself.
I was in a class the other taught by one of the metro swat guys and he used the word "operator" when talking about his team mates multiple times.
It took a lot of effort to keep my opinion on that to myself.
Maybe he meant Coperator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/
So that means they shouldn't receive qualified immunity right? Or tax dollars, subsidies, LEOSA, etc...
So that means they shouldn't receive qualified immunity right? Or tax dollars, subsidies, LEOSA, etc...
No no no silly.....it means they get the benefits of both with the drawbacks of neither.
I drove through Belen, NM not long ago, on a road trip, and they've got an MRAP parked out in front of their station.
Belen has a population of 7200 according to Google.
Straight Shooter
06-28-14, 17:43
ABNAK...yes sir..its Frontier Days this weekend. For the first time ever for some reason the crowds weren't there en masse as usual. HOT. Then had a 35-40 minute downpour. Then HOT...and MUGGY. I tripped on back to Huntsville AL.
So that means they shouldn't receive qualified immunity right? Or tax dollars, subsidies, LEOSA, etc...It would seem they can't play both sides of the fence.
What's next? Sworn Blackwater employees running around patrolling?
Maybe he meant Coperator.
Haha thats a good one.. I might use that next time this converstion topic comes up with friends
Eurodriver
06-28-14, 18:15
It's quite easy.
Eliminate the war on drugs, and the fuzz no longer has a need for MRAPs and other stupid shit.
It'd be a war on something else. Politicians and bureaucrats aren't big on having their budget cut.
If I were chief of a local popo department I would immediately institute the following (funds allowing of course):
[QUOTE=ABNAK;1942195]
2) Button-down "dress" style shirt with no sewn-on name tags. Departmental patch allowed on sleeve, all other accoutrements would be shiny badge and nameplate. Kind of an Adam-12 look.. So you'd have a policy that compromises officer safety by forcing them forcing them to wear reflective items on their uniforms? Nevernind the increased cost of dress type uniforms with regard to care and maintenance. And are you going to fund replacements every time a name tag or badge is ripped off and lost/broken during a scuffle?
4) Long gun (AR) allowed in trunk of cruiser, otherwise it's sidearm and shotgun only for public view.. This is beyond fracking stupid... Again you're willing to sacrifice officer safety for appearance sake. The AR is more effective and easier to master than the shotgun. It's the way of the future for LE and for good reason. If people are freaked out by seeing them being carried by good guys or in cruisers... those fearful fools should get some psychological assistance. In an active shooter or a hundred other scenarios there won't be time to get anything from the trunk.
7) Officers appearing to be or reported as being a little too "gung-ho" would have their heels locked in my office the first time, suspended the next. . I'm dying to hear your definition of gung ho. Especially since you plan to discipline officers over gossipy nonsense. You should get some leadership training before being put in charge of anyone.
All of the above clearly shows you don't know what you don't know. It might make you feel better to spout off about how you'd fix all those "perceived" problems. But your ideas are so far out of touch it's like listening to an 8th grader explain how to save the world from hunger.
All of the above clearly shows you don't know what you don't know. It might make you feel better to spout off about how you'd fix all those "perceived" problems. But your ideas are so far out of touch it's like listening to an 8th grader explain how to save the world from hunger.
Why not take the time to explain, what he doesn't know, rather than insulting him?
I think some of his suggestions are well grounded, and a few that need some work. As an example, AR's in trunks, which I don't think is very well thought, due to not knowing when you're gonna need that AR. From an appearance perspective, possibly, for the un-gun friendly PC public, but it's not realistic.
However, in a running gun fight in vehicles, with people who're shooting AK's at cops and citizens, you need that mother****in' AR now! This happened in Albuquerque, NM not long ago and is a prime example of why you might need that AR while driving. I don't know how to embed live leak videos so here's a link with lapel cam footage: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69b_1391652971
walkin' trails
06-28-14, 19:58
There are a lot of things wrong with the criticism of the so-called militarization of American LE. I will not go so far as to say that everything done by LE. is righteous, but the job is not an easy one. I have to sometimes wonder about some communities that acquire the armored vehicles and such, as they're probably more of a drain to the budget than a menace to the community. The paramilitary style uniforms, however, have some legitimate usefulness the bottom down shirts and leather Sam brownes of the 20th century are not the best, nor ever were for chasing crooks, staying cool, carrying all the crap a cop has to carry, etc. They still make nice dress uniforms, but that's about all. I am much more comfortable working in a sh****y environment in cargo pants and combat boots than in expensive wool trousers and button-down shirts with leather shoes or dress boots. And as far as the long guns being out of sight, insure that it's an officer safety issue if they're not as readily available as security allows them to be. As long as gang members are running around with AKs and the like, cops need their ling guns. Besides, an AR is a lot more accurate and controllable for the vast majority of cops than a 12 ga. I want police to be professional, but dimming them down to doorman status is not going to help. Anyway, while violent crime in America has decreased, the explosive nature of the threats LE faces have become more sophisticated and intense.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-14, 20:05
Why not take the time to explain, what he doesn't know, rather than insulting him?
I think some of his suggestions are well grounded, and a few that need some work. As an example, AR's in trunks, which I don't think is very well thought, due to not knowing when you're gonna need that AR. From an appearance perspective, possibly, for the un-gun friendly PC public, but it's not realistic.
However, in a running gun fight in vehicles, with people who're shooting AK's at cops and citizens, you need that mother****in' AR now! This happened in Albuquerque, NM not long ago and is a prime example of why you might need that AR while driving. I don't know how to embed live leak videos so here's a link with lapel cam footage: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69b_1391652971
Dude, he invoked 'officer safety'- he even did it twice- the debate is now officially over.
All Black ninja, ACU, Crye gear- makes me laugh every time I see it in the urban environment, where what, 99.9% of SWAT attacks happen? You want urban camo? Wear a Fed-ex or UPS uniform and truck- you are now invisible. Unless you are running up on a meth lab out in the woods or doing an arrest on an Army base, Multicam isn't camouflage.
Eurodriver
06-28-14, 20:05
Officer Safety
Sorry, but just because it makes your job safer doesn't mean it's automatically warranted. Where does it end? You want an M1 Abrams to do a traffic stop?
Fortunately, Sheriffs are elected and police chiefs are appointed by people who are elected. They tried dabbling into that BS around here and we sent the mayor packing. He wanted every single traffic violation to turn into a full-blown Chris Dorner pursuit, was shooting dogs at the rate of one per week, and used tasers as frequently as a teenager with a cell phone.
They have reverted back to soft armor underneath button up shirts, limited pursuits to forcible felonies, and tasers can only be used if the person is resisting with violence. Guess what? The sky hasn't fallen, no LEOs have been killed (or even shot) since the new policy has taken effect and other departments are following suit.
You'd think we haven't learned anything from Iraq or Afghanistan...
Why not take the time to explain, what he doesn't know, rather than insulting him?
I think some of his suggestions are well grounded, and a few that need some work.
Possibly because he started out with "po-po" which most of us find a bit insulting, if not immature.
That is the end of my gas on the fire.
The problems with some of the "solutions" offered. First, as chief, you do not have the time to lock the heels of every officer you feel too "gung ho" (which is pretty subjective). You have a chain and sergeants that work for you to address your vision. If they are not doing it adequately, you are failing in communicating your ideals. This will apply more to large departments, and to a lesser degree for smaller ones.
The danger in firing or disciplining based on complaints or perception is that it gives power over who polices them to the hoods. If they know they can get an officer removed or transferred based solely on allegations not substantiated by internal investigations, they will come in with baseless complaints until they get officers who are too scared to take action against them. The only one who wins in that situation are the crooks.
I agree with the "coperator" comment. Having said that, a professional tactical unit is a need nowadays. The tools, like all things, advance with technology, including combat. And when bullets are whizzing by, it is combat. That said, the guys who think they are Delta Gru 6 really do not get it. They may be tops on their own ladder, but not all ladders.
Weapons should not be sequestered to the least accessible part of the cruiser. They should be secured, and there can be SOPs regarding deployment, but you do not take away tools. It is a safety thing.
While I agree that the traditional police uniform is (generally) sharp, and what many of us grew up on, I can tell you it is also the least comfortable or efficient outfit for most of what we do. It may look good directing traffic, but for running, crawling around in houses that make hoarders look OCD, or a whole host of other duties, it is poor. Advances in fabrics, synthetics, even lighter weight nylon gunbelts are much more efficient, and reduce long term injury and back problems that plague many officers. Blousing boots, while I am not a fan myself, help keep the bugs out when you go into roach infested houses amongst other things.
Are MRAPs really needed, maybe, maybe not. I will say that mobile armor as cover has been used to evacuate pinned down officers and citizens numerous times. Again, it is not the technology, but the use of it.
Haha thats a good one.. I might use that next time this converstion topic comes up with friends
Can't claim rights to that. Saw it somewhere else. But yeah, it's fitting (to some).
[QUOTE=ABNAK;1942195] If I were chief of a local popo department I would immediately institute the following (funds allowing of course):
. So you'd have a policy that compromises officer safety by forcing them forcing them to wear reflective items on their uniforms? Nevernind the increased cost of dress type uniforms with regard to care and maintenance. And are you going to fund replacements every time a name tag or badge is ripped off and lost/broken during a scuffle?
. This is beyond fracking stupid... Again you're willing to sacrifice officer safety for appearance sake. The AR is more effective and easier to master than the shotgun. It's the way of the future for LE and for good reason. If people are freaked out by seeing them being carried by good guys or in cruisers... those fearful fools should get some psychological assistance. In an active shooter or a hundred other scenarios there won't be time to get anything from the trunk.
. I'm dying to hear your definition of gung ho. Especially since you plan to discipline officers over gossipy nonsense. You should get some leadership training before being put in charge of anyone.
All of the above clearly shows you don't know what you don't know. It might make you feel better to spout off about how you'd fix all those "perceived" problems. But your ideas are so far out of touch it's like listening to an 8th grader explain how to save the world from hunger.
Your juvenile response tells me who currently pays your paycheck. I'd expect no less. Grow up......things have been reformed before. 'Cause of course it's just perfect and peachy, right?
Oh, apparently "gung ho" strikes a chord.......
Frankly, what concerns me is that we draw our law enforcement, clergymen, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers from the general population. Always have, always will. At the risk of being hopelessly old fashioned I would submit that if the citizenry thinks that morals and ethics don't matter, eventually the rot will show up everywhere. In lots of countries, they don't need military gear. They'll just stick with the tried and true and beat you to death with sticks.
I spent 4 years in the military and another 22 as a federal LEO. NO institution has survived unscathed, and "trust me" is a joke. "Militarization" is just a symptom. Nowadays it's like a box of chocklits--I don't know what I'm going to get when I interact with authority.
When you've spent 40 plus years undermining your legitimacy and credibility, we all suffer.
MRAPs, militarization, the war on drugs, rifles and shotguns, po-po... It's all here. I predict that this thread doesn't survive the night. Therefore, this is the only warning.
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-maintain-low-tones-2.png
You guys are on the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So "in the know", its cra cra!!!!
I tell you, I just wish I could be as righteous as john q. public, but I cant.....I wake up wearing a hobnail boot looking for someone to stomp out. I certainly don't just show up to work, and do my job. That's crazy talk..........
LOL
I've actually adopted a new form of L.E. tactic, I call it "laissez faire"......"whats that ma'am? he strangled you?....sounds like a personal problem to me...I don't want to oppress nobodies rights, and since this shit happens once a week to you...take a hint woman!" lol Or...."Come again sir? Someone stole from you????....."constitution"...have a nice day"....
lol people....
MRAPs, militarization, the war on drugs, rifles and shotguns, po-po... It's all here. I predict that this thread doesn't survive the night. Therefore, this is the only warning.
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-maintain-low-tones-2.png
With all due respect, is there a reason why we can't discuss such things?
With all due respect, is there a reason why we can't discuss such things?
Tha man tryin to keep ya down!!!! Constitution! Freedom! Sovereign! Liberty!
NoveskeFan
06-28-14, 20:52
Ive been in this field for six years, and have not personally met any officers that express disdain for "civillians" or vets. I acknowledge that bad officers exist...I wish they didnt, but you will always get people that overstep their limitations in all walks of life (but I get that its different when a cop does it and infringes on peoples freedoms). Back in the academy, we had an instructor that would always show a variation of the below speech. Maybe more officers should see it, or just remember that they put on the uniform and badge as a symbol of public trust to be fair and just.
http://youtu.be/Dluz-0k3WZA
Ive been in this field for six years, and have not personally met any officers that express distain for "civillians" or vets. I acknowledge that bad officers exist...I wish they didnt, but you will always get people that overstep their limitations in all walks of life (but I get that its different when a cop does it and infringes on peoples freedoms). Back in the academy, we had an instructor that would always show a variation of the below speech. Maybe more officers should see it, or just remember that they put on the uniform and badge as a symbol of public trust to be fair and just.
http://youtu.be/Dluz-0k3WZA
Dude that cant be right, Alex Jones said we's in a Police State.
p.s. I worked 16hrs today and didn't break out my hypermilitarizedpolicestatemkultra gear on anyone. Guess Im falling behind with the times....
With all due respect, is there a reason why we can't discuss such things?
Absolutely discuss the issues, observant of forum rules and decorum, and enjoy the discourse.
NoveskeFan
06-28-14, 21:04
Dude that cant be right, Alex Jones said we's in a Police State.
I'd be foolish to say I don’t see things through a different lens, or maybe I just hang out with like-minded officers. I definitely went through a great academy / great instructors. They recorded practicals (often as instigators) and showed us the results. It felt weird doing "real" traffic stops without a camera in your face.
Possibly because he started out with "po-po" which most of us find a bit insulting, if not immature.
I can understand that. But, we also have members here who have "popo" in their screen name. ;)
The problems with some of the "solutions" offered. First, as chief, you do not have the time to lock the heels of every officer you feel too "gung ho" (which is pretty subjective). You have a chain and sergeants that work for you to address your vision. If they are not doing it adequately, you are failing in communicating your ideals. This will apply more to large departments, and to a lesser degree for smaller ones.
The danger in firing or disciplining based on complaints or perception is that it gives power over who polices them to the hoods. If they know they can get an officer removed or transferred based solely on allegations not substantiated by internal investigations, they will come in with baseless complaints until they get officers who are too scared to take action against them. The only one who wins in that situation are the crooks.
I agree with the "coperator" comment. Having said that, a professional tactical unit is a need nowadays. The tools, like all things, advance with technology, including combat. And when bullets are whizzing by, it is combat. That said, the guys who think they are Delta Gru 6 really do not get it. They may be tops on their own ladder, but not all ladders.
Weapons should not be sequestered to the least accessible part of the cruiser. They should be secured, and there can be SOPs regarding deployment, but you do not take away tools. It is a safety thing.
While I agree that the traditional police uniform is (generally) sharp, and what many of us grew up on, I can tell you it is also the least comfortable or efficient outfit for most of what we do. It may look good directing traffic, but for running, crawling around in houses that make hoarders look OCD, or a whole host of other duties, it is poor. Advances in fabrics, synthetics, even lighter weight nylon gunbelts are much more efficient, and reduce long term injury and back problems that plague many officers. Blousing boots, while I am not a fan myself, help keep the bugs out when you go into roach infested houses amongst other things.
Are MRAPs really needed, maybe, maybe not. I will say that mobile armor as cover has been used to evacuate pinned down officers and citizens numerous times. Again, it is not the technology, but the use of it.
Good stuff. Thanks for offering your perspective. Informative and educational for those not in the know.
In before the mindless "nothing is wrong with police in this country, you guys are just police bashers" and the thread get closed down.
I just lol'd... cause it's true
BoringGuy45
06-28-14, 23:20
One thing the gun community as a whole needs to stop is this extreme hostility to law enforcement. It is very counterproductive, and it alienates a big and influential community that is largely supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Cops are not the enemy. Part of being a law abiding citizen is respecting those who protect our communities and enforce the laws.
I'm no Kool Aid drinker. I recognize that law enforcement, being a position of power and authority, attracts a lot of people who give the rest a bad name. Yes, there are guys who are doing the job for no other reason than to legally bully people and cause chaos. There are cops who have some kind of obsessive compulsive personality disorder and have absolutely no grace, mercy, or empathy. There are hard charging ultra-type A cops who are complete control freaks and who fly off the handle at anyone who doesn't immediately cower and piss himself in the officer's presence. Contrary to popular belief, most other officers don't like these guys because they are just as big douche bags to deal with inside the station, and they make work harder for them out on the street. I also recognize that officers, even the good ones, can come off as cold and aloof to most non-LE people, but when you look at things like what happened in Las Vegas or Lakewood among thousands of other attempted ambushes and traffic stops gone bad, you can understand why. Everyone needs to call out dirty cops, and I am disappointed when officers still support them under the excuse of "I wasn't there so I can't judge" when it's very clear that the officer is question is in the wrong. But at the same time, we need to stop assuming that every call that ends with something other than everyone leaving happy and smiling must be because the officer either sucks at his job or is a dirty cop.
Now, do I think that every department in every state, county, city, town, borough, village, and federal needs their own SWAT team, MRAP, Predator drone, Abrams tank, nuclear missile submarine, etc? Of course not. I don't see why, for example, the Department of Education needs a tactical unit or even a law enforcement wing. But I do understand why the police are not the same as they were a hundred years ago. The FBI and police starting carrying Tommy Guns because The Chicago Outfit, Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, and the other criminals of that time were using them. SWAT started because terrorism, hostage taking, and dangerous criminals were too much for your patrol officer to handle. Police academies and departments became more and more military-like because criminals became better armed, better organized, better trained, and better led. I don't know why anyone should have a fundamental problem with this. It's the same mentality we gun owners have: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns, so our best response is to get better guns and better training ourselves. But when it comes to law enforcement, we suddenly turn into liberals, and start offering "being nice and polite" as the best response for a police officer trying to subdue a violent criminal.
We need to stop being antagonistic to law enforcement. The same way we don't want to be judged as a whole community just because of a few nuts shooting up a school, I don't think it's fair for us to judge the whole law enforcement because of a few bad eggs.
One thing the gun community as a whole needs to stop is this extreme hostility to law enforcement. It is very counterproductive, and it alienates a big and influential community that is largely supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Cops are not the enemy. Part of being a law abiding citizen is respecting those who protect our communities and enforce the laws.
I'm no Kool Aid drinker. I recognize that law enforcement, being a position of power and authority, attracts a lot of people who give the rest a bad name. Yes, there are guys who are doing the the job for no other reason than to legally bully people and cause chaos. There are cops who have some kind of obsessive compulsive personality disorder and have absolutely no grace, mercy, or empathy. There are hard charging ultra-type A cops who are complete control freaks and who fly off the handle at anyone who doesn't immediately cower and piss himself in the officer's presence. Contrary to popular belief, most other officers don't like these guys because they are just as big douche bags to deal with inside the station, and they make work harder for them out on the street. I also recognize that officers, even the good ones, can come off as cold and aloof to most non-LE people, but when you look at things like what happened in Las Vegas or Lakewood among thousands of other attempted ambushes and traffic stops gone bad, you can understand why. Everyone needs to call out dirty cops, and I am disappointed when officers still support them under the excuse of "I wasn't there so I can't judge" when it's very clear that the officer is question is in the wrong. But at the same time, we need to stop assuming that every call that ends with something other than everyone leaving happy and smiling must be because the officer either sucks at his job or is a dirty cop.
Now, do I think that every department in every state, county, city, town, borough, village, and federal needs their own SWAT team, MRAP, Predator drone, Abrams tank, nuclear missile submarine, etc? Of course not. I don't see why, for example, the Department of Education needs a tactical unit or even a law enforcement wing. But I do understand why the police are not the same as they were a hundred years ago. The FBI and police starting carrying Tommy Guns because The Chicago Outfit, Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, and the other criminals of that time were using them. SWAT started because terrorism, hostage taking, and dangerous criminals were too much for your patrol officer to handle. Police academies and departments became more and more military-like because criminals became better armed, better organized, better trained, and better led. I don't know why anyone should have a fundamental problem with this. It's the same mentality we gun owners have: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns, so our best response is to get better guns and better training ourselves. But when it comes to law enforcement, we suddenly turn into liberals, and start offering "being nice and polite" as the best response for a police officer trying to subdue a violent criminal.
We need to stop being antagonistic to law enforcement. The same way we don't want to be judged as a whole community just because of a few nuts shooting up a school, I don't think it's fair for us to judge the whole law enforcement because of a few bad eggs.
Well stated.
This "incorporating" nonsense is very concerning. First I've ever heard of such a thing.
Agreed. If they want to act like a private corporation, then no fublic funding or access to items such as burst/auto items unless following NFA rules, MRAPs, etc.
The suggestions that I would make that I listed on page 1 were just that: suggestions. Wash and wear uniforms that are a little more comfortable? Okay, but forget fatigues Also, no agencies around here have an AR visible in the cab of their cruisers.
Some of the replies reinforce my opinion that attitude and mindset can and should be revamped. I never made any sweeping generalizations about cops, just suggested some subtle changes that could positively influence attitude and change mindset. I'll bullshit with the cops I know and wave when I pass. I'm not anti-cop. Look, I work in the medical field, the VA to be more precise. I'm sure there are a million suggestions about how that ethic can be changed and improved, and it should be. However, that doesn't mean (I hope anyway) that it'd be an indictment against all VA employees.
I know there are bad apples in every group of people and any number of examples thereof, but the "professionalism" of state police agencies and the FBI is a good model. State troopers look sharp, and at least the ones I've seen do it while not wearing fatigues. The FBI, while not necessarily in the uniform realm, carry themselves in a way that implies professionalism. Both those agencies have a stoic, largely unflappable demeanor about them (what they're thinking underneath doesn't often show through). You're not going to see Johnny Hothead flying off the handle and keeping his job very long with those two agencies. "Sir" and "Ma'am" come out of their mouths. IMHO they hold their officers/agents to a higher standard of conduct and behavior than local PD's and Sheriff's offices. Yes, they have tac-teams and yes, they can screw up but you get my point I hope. What is expected of them, the accountability they face, and how they carry themselves professionally during interactions with the public can serve as guidance for other LEO administrators in the future.
One thing the gun community as a whole needs to stop is this extreme hostility to law enforcement.
The first thing we need to do is dispel this myth. It sounds an awful lot like the "you're racist if you don't agree with Obama." Pointing out abusive and criminal activities isn't "hostility." The only "extreme hostility" is towards anyone who dares to question anything done by LE. If LE would direct some of that energy to purge the bad cops, instead of defend them, the "cop haters" would quickly run out of stuff to talk about.
montanadave
06-29-14, 08:51
The suggestions that I would make that I listed on page 1 were just that: suggestions. Wash and wear uniforms that are a little more comfortable? Okay, but forget fatigues Also, no agencies around here have an AR visible in the cab of their cruisers.
Some of the replies reinforce my opinion that attitude and mindset can and should be revamped. I never made any sweeping generalizations about cops, just suggested some subtle changes that could positively influence attitude and change mindset. I'll bullshit with the cops I know and wave when I pass. I'm not anti-cop. Look, I work in the medical field, the VA to be more precise. I'm sure there are a million suggestions about how that ethic can be changed and improved, and it should be. However, that doesn't mean (I hope anyway) that it'd be an indictment against all VA employees.
I know there are bad apples in every group of people and any number of examples thereof, but the "professionalism" of state police agencies and the FBI is a good model. State troopers look sharp, and at least the ones I've seen do it while not wearing fatigues. The FBI, while not necessarily in the uniform realm, carry themselves in a way that implies professionalism. Both those agencies have a stoic, largely unflappable demeanor about them (what they're thinking underneath doesn't often show through). You're not going to see Johnny Hothead flying off the handle and keeping his job very long with those two agencies. "Sir" and "Ma'am" come out of their mouths. IMHO they hold their officers/agents to a higher standard of conduct and behavior than local PD's and Sheriff's offices. Yes, they have tac-teams and yes, they can screw up but you get my point I hope. What is expected of them, the accountability they face, and how they carry themselves professionally during interactions with the public can serve as guidance for other LEO administrators in the future.
Nicely stated.
I think boring guy hit most points well.
Do LE agencies need camo fatigues no, waste of money. However from someone who has worn a full class A uniform/ court uniform. Name tapes and patches do what is needed and is cost effective. Yeah I may look nice but me unassing the car in long selves and a tie 95+ degrees to patrol on foot is retarded, let alone dangerous.
Mraps are cheaper than what a vehicle that could serve the same purpose would be. Are they use a lot depends on the agency, mine does not have one but I have seen them used twice. Both times gunfire had already been exchanged they were used to remove bystanders out and bring good guys and equipment up. So they do have a place, just not routine patrol.
Finally I find most people who complain about LEO doing xyz, are fine when their fellow citizens do it. And many make the same point the Feinstein groups make about the gun culture(" you don't need that", " it is scary" , " you look like Rambo")
This isn't about good and bad cops to me. It is about overkill! Like the officer directing traffic the other day near where I live. Fully decked out including plate carrier. It's not like the Bluffton/Hilton Head area is a war zone.
As far as the " Us VS them" the only time I start to see that when the general public often does on rants about how much of " fascist " LEO are. It alienates LEO and makes them feel as if they are more despised then the criminals they chase. Which some people do view LEO in this manner. But they are usually the loudest in a community and street levels guys hear them the most, and forget that everyone does not hate them.
I get what you're saying. The earlier "list of suggestions" sounded a lot like someone who has little concept of police work or leadership trying to 12-step a solution.
Attitude and mindset can't be disciplined into people. You have to hire for these traits, or at least for the potential for these traits. It makes things easier down the road. Yes, it can get hard to fill seats at the academy, especially if your agency is already in a staffing crunch, but if we hire better, we don't have to train personality or ethics, and it saves us grief later on. Back in the recent Las Vegas active shooter/LODD thread, a post mentioned that, with all the MMQBing and anti-government sentiment being directed at LE, you are more apt to get decent LEOs to jump ship, only to be replaced by head crackers. That will only make things worse.
Spiffy uniforms and nice polos do go a long way in projecting confidence and competence, but in 10 years of working in BDUs, I've never received a complaint due to my appearance. Professionalism shines through the uniform. The complaints I did get, and sustain (not many) came from things I said, did, or failed to do. No amount of spit and polish can fix that. Looking back now, as a new Sgt., I could care less if the officers in my squad choose to wear BDUs, pleated cargos, hidden pocket class Bs, or their class As on patrol (we have a lot of leeway- no blousing though). What matters is whether or not they perform their duties competently, courteously, courageously, and safely.
I was a SWAT guy until recently. Even before I knew my time was up (promotion=off the team), I cringed at being referred to as an "operator". I preferred the term "SWAT Officer", and then only when referring to us when we were doing SWAT stuff. Taking a cue from a consultant who is keenly aware of the liabilities and trends in SWAT, the team also went away from subdued patches for most of the work we (they) do. We have an MRAP; it has seen very limited use, but since we don't parade it around town and use it for dime bag raids, the public (my preference vs citizen or civilian) is for the most part, OK with it. Our chief and the team commander also did good work in outlining the issues with borrowing the county's Bearcat (which was supposed to be shared), and the budgetary shortfalls which precluded us from buying a more LE minded vehicle.
Some people have opined that this site is becoming "anti-LE". I've had similar thoughts myself. What I understand now is that often times, an OP will point to a specific story or department. What follows are comments like, "what's wrong with LE?", "police state", "cops need to...", and so on and so forth, without realizing that the conversation now, via the language used, lumps all LE into the mess with the specific department or officer mentioned.
LEO here (myself included) can do a better job of doing here what we do everyday: read between the lines and behind the words. We also have to do better in educating some of our wayward extended family.
Non-LEOs here would do well to consider that taking the poor actions and choices of some of us (the ones we ourselves often complain about, who give us a bad name) as representative of the whole, whether you mean to or not, is the same thing the anti-gunners do to all of us.
This isn't about good and bad cops to me. It is about overkill! Like the officer directing traffic the other day near where I live. Fully decked out including plate carrier. It's not like the Bluffton/Hilton Head area is a war zone.
I would have to see the carrier to comment, I have also seen this before. But we had just had a shoot out with a high ranking UBN member who was DRT. The fear of immediate retribution from UBN caused it. Was the public view of this officer probably poor yes. But given the circumstances I didn't see a problem with it.
They now have dress exterior soft carriers that I dream of because they can take items off the belt line which saves on officer related injuries and early retirement back injuries. IE saves money in the long run.
I also know vice and detectives who wear suits do not wear soft armor. However they do have external hard vest they put on over a dress shirt and tie when picking someone up or assisting patrol. This is partially done for easy officer IDing for LEO and the public. Now vice guys yes would have t shirts and what not but they are usually in and out with there stuff.
I liked it when cops were peace keepers not a military force to be hated. That being said I have dealt with cops that are quite honorable, a trait that is lacking through out society these days.. I couldn't imagine having a good day dealing with the filth and scum on a daily basis that is part of the job though.
They should be considered as a foreign military force, and should be treated as such. Their presence doesn't foster peace it stirs up turmoil. The acceptance of such troops will have us accept U.N troops on our soil with out protest. I am 61 years old and when I was a child the police were there to keep us out of trouble. Protect us and if needed take us home and tell our parents. Today they arrest little kids at school and kill innocents and get away with it. That being said I have dealt with police and sheriffs that I have had to say have been above and beyond honorable.
So the next 15 year old gang member selling heroin and in possession of a handgun I should just take him home right? Oh and when his 17 year old " big homie" starts hang out with our granddaughter cause he is " tuff" bad boy image. She then quickly gets hooked on dope and turned out to adult dicks at the age of13-17. I guess I should take him home to mommy to right. I have seen both of the above more than once. The latter truly brakes my heart. I honestly don't think you have any concept of the actives that go on in the streets.
Tha man tryin to keep ya down!!!! Constitution! Freedom! Sovereign! Liberty!
J-Dub.. you've made three or four useless comments here as though you actually want the thread shut down. Does it not concern you that the most technically proficient segment of law enforcement is becoming or trying to become privatized? Actually tax free and privatized.... You know, like a religion......
I appreciate your frustration as a LEO, but this is no joking matter.
So the next 15 year old gang member selling heroin and in possession of a handgun I should just take him home right? Oh and when his 17 year old " big homie" starts hang out with our granddaughter cause he is " tuff" bad boy image. She then quickly gets hooked on dope and turned out to adult dicks at the age of13-17. I guess I should take him home to mommy to right. I have seen both of the above more than once. The latter truly brakes my heart. I honestly don't think you have any concept of the actives that go on in the streets.
Common sense dictates the course of action you should take. I reworded my post in between your quote,, please reread. My cousin was a cop Retired in a city with overflow from Oakland Calif.
Voodoo_Man
06-29-14, 10:44
I liked it when cops were peace keepers not a military force to be hated. That being said I have dealt with cops that should quite honorable a trait that is lacking through out society these days.. I couldn't imagine having a good day dealing with the filth and scum on a daily basis that is part of the job though.
I like the concept of "peacekeeper" however with the current climate of sue happy "victims" that is nearly impossible.
It is simply a pipe dream in the modern day.
The whole system is flawed. Lets get rid of all these nanny state laws and we wouldn't need so many police. Only so many people are truly cut out to be police. But since we have so many stupid laws we've had to hire just about anyone to enforce them all. I wouldn't be surprised if the nonsense laws have resulted in many of those with police DNA to be forced out or cause them to never pursue the LE route in the first place.
I like the AR in the cop car it is an ideal rifle rifle for the job,,, cops are usually called when there are not very polite situations happening.
Common sense dictates the course of action you should take. I reworded my post in between your quote,, please reread. My cousin was a cop Retired in a city with overflow from Oakland Calif.
Reread your sig line.
Looking at your original, unedited, post, simple math has you growing up during the civil rights movement. Hardly a "good old days" image for law enforcement. Some of those guys were militarized and "us vs them" long before plate carriers, MRAPs, and cargo pants were on the scene.
Reread your sig line.
Looking at your original, unedited, post, simple math has you growing up during the civil rights movement. Hardly a "good old days" image for law enforcement. Some of those guys were militarized and "us vs them" long before plate carriers, MRAPs, and cargo pants were on the scene.In the words of Sylvia,,"Even I make mistakes".
thanks.
I like the AR in the cop car it is an ideal rifle rifle for the job,,, cops are usually called when there are not very polite situations happening.
Agreed, if you have the gear you might as well have it so you can use it. Restricting where gear has to be placed is not a concern. One guy could lock it in his trunk an entire career. Another might need a hand on it all night long. How it gets used is the issue.
One thing the gun community as a whole needs to stop is this extreme hostility to law enforcement. It is very counterproductive, and it alienates a big and influential community that is largely supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Cops are not the enemy. Part of being a law abiding citizen is respecting those who protect our communities and enforce the laws...
We need to stop being antagonistic to law enforcement. The same way we don't want to be judged as a whole community just because of a few nuts shooting up a school, I don't think it's fair for us to judge the whole law enforcement because of a few bad eggs.
Good post and I think you make some very valid points. I cut out the middle cause I don't disagree.
However, I don't think there's hostility towards "law enforcement" as a whole. I see it being directed at specific examples, and individuals, who display egregious behavior who are often times given a pass by those in LE using the "I wasn't there..." type of excuses. The blind allegiance that's demonstrated is very reminiscent of a gang behavior and there's a distinct victim mentality that goes along with it. The police should condemn the bad, and praise the good, but that doesn't happen. Union protection and arbitration ensure that the shitbags work right alongside the good guys and 1 bad deed cancels 1000 good ones, unfortunately.
Like it or not, when you're the enforcement arm of the government, you're going to come under a lot of scrutiny.
The first thing we need to do is dispel this myth. It sounds an awful lot like the "you're racist if you don't agree with Obama." Pointing out abusive and criminal activities isn't "hostility." The only "extreme hostility" is towards anyone who dares to question anything done by LE. If LE would direct some of that energy to purge the bad cops, instead of defend them, the "cop haters" would quickly run out of stuff to talk about.
hart said it well, in my opinion.
Some people have opined that this site is becoming "anti-LE". I've had similar thoughts myself. What I understand now is that often times, an OP will point to a specific story or department. What follows are comments like, "what's wrong with LE?", "police state", "cops need to...", and so on and so forth, without realizing that the conversation now, via the language used, lumps all LE into the mess with the specific department or officer mentioned.
LEO here (myself included) can do a better job of doing here what we do everyday: read between the lines and behind the words. We also have to do better in educating some of our wayward extended family.
Non-LEOs here would do well to consider that taking the poor actions and choices of some of us (the ones we ourselves often complain about, who give us a bad name) as representative of the whole, whether you mean to or not, is the same thing the anti-gunners do to all of us.
Good point. A lot of other groups could be offended as well. The majority of the members here slam on liberals/democrats, guys who open carry, etc. and everyone lumps them into the same category due to the actions of the few. I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, you do, but there are plenty of people who get lumped into the same group by default.
This thread's gone surprisingly well, for the most part, and I thank you for the discourse.
I honestly don't think you have any concept of the actives that go on in the streets.
That very well may be the crux of the problem. I would think the vast majority of the people here live good lives and are law-abiding for the most part. So, we see the world through our "lens" and it's colored by our own perceptions, biases, etc. Someone who works in LE, in a bad area, is definitely looking at things from a different perspective and their "lens" is tinted a very different shade... Or something along those lines.
No matter how critical I am of the individual, or a specific incident, I don't lump all police into the same category. One can criticize the person, or their actions, without being "anti-cop". Just because you criticize one black guy, or their actions, doesn't mean you hate all black people.
Stay safe.
Thanks for the dose of logic Sgt.
Possibly because he started out with "po-po" which most of us find a bit insulting, if not immature.
That is the end of my gas on the fire.
The problems with some of the "solutions" offered. First, as chief, you do not have the time to lock the heels of every officer you feel too "gung ho" (which is pretty subjective). You have a chain and sergeants that work for you to address your vision. If they are not doing it adequately, you are failing in communicating your ideals. This will apply more to large departments, and to a lesser degree for smaller ones.
The danger in firing or disciplining based on complaints or perception is that it gives power over who polices them to the hoods. If they know they can get an officer removed or transferred based solely on allegations not substantiated by internal investigations, they will come in with baseless complaints until they get officers who are too scared to take action against them. The only one who wins in that situation are the crooks.
I agree with the "coperator" comment. Having said that, a professional tactical unit is a need nowadays. The tools, like all things, advance with technology, including combat. And when bullets are whizzing by, it is combat. That said, the guys who think they are Delta Gru 6 really do not get it. They may be tops on their own ladder, but not all ladders.
Weapons should not be sequestered to the least accessible part of the cruiser. They should be secured, and there can be SOPs regarding deployment, but you do not take away tools. It is a safety thing.
While I agree that the traditional police uniform is (generally) sharp, and what many of us grew up on, I can tell you it is also the least comfortable or efficient outfit for most of what we do. It may look good directing traffic, but for running, crawling around in houses that make hoarders look OCD, or a whole host of other duties, it is poor. Advances in fabrics, synthetics, even lighter weight nylon gunbelts are much more efficient, and reduce long term injury and back problems that plague many officers. Blousing boots, while I am not a fan myself, help keep the bugs out when you go into roach infested houses amongst other things.
Are MRAPs really needed, maybe, maybe not. I will say that mobile armor as cover has been used to evacuate pinned down officers and citizens numerous times. Again, it is not the technology, but the use of it.
Straight Shooter
06-29-14, 12:42
Let me give an example for the reason many people have a bad opinion of cops.
I personally know a gent, in his seventies...Vietnam vet, very educated and well to do. Snappy dresser. OPEN CARRIES EVERY TIME, no prob ever. So, he goes in a place for lunch, orders, standing there pouring his drink, and is approached by a black detective, who asks him to step outside a minute. Now, this is early 2013 here in AL. Detective tells him he is under arrest. WHY?! For illegal carrying/possessing a weapon. NOONE at the store said a word to the cop about it. So, he is arrested, booked, and thrown into a cell with no food for half a day. NOTHING given to drink. After attorney gets ahold of DA, he is released, charges dropped, and the black detective is brought before him to apologize. THEY HAD TO MAKE THIS FOOL APOLOGISE. When he did, this man said is was half assed one at best. My point here: Since day one AL became a state, it has NEVER been illegal to open carry in this state. Yet since moving here a few years ago, Ive met & heard MANY stories of this happening. Costing people thousands of dollars, losing jobs, guns and having to even plea it out. COPS DONT KNOW THE F-ING LAWS THEMSELVES, or FLAT OUT choose to ignore them. This detective was TOLD the law, the guys son is a cop on the same force. HE IGNORED IT and arrested him anyway. Not a gangbanger with his ass hanging out. Not a meth head. Not a redneck with an AR and ammo belt strapped on. But an old, well dressed, unassuming gent just trying to sit down too lunch. Now, do stories like THIS encourage the general public to like & have trust & support cops, or could it possibly have the opposite effect? YOU DECIDE.
I think many of the things some people view as "hypermilitarization" come from the fact that as a nation, we have been at war for over the last decade. One of the great catalysts for technological advancement, for better or worse, is war. It also applies to tactics.
Twenty years ago when I started, no one carried tourniquets for example. Now I don't think anyone here would call an officer militarized for a TQ on his belt, but nowadays it is much more common. In uniform, I keep one on my ankle. What changed? The doctrine regarding use and self aid of TQs became advanced as a result of lessons learned in combat, and this trickled down to LE, where there can be similar risks of injury from knife, gunshot, and vehicle accidents.
Weaponry, such as rifles, did not necessarily change due to war (north Hollywood shootout was likely more influential) but you do have a great many more combat veterans in the work force, and many gravitate to LE. ARs are familiar weapons to these soldiers, and anecdotally to me, they are more likely to be used when the situation calls for it. Many of the accessories, such as optics, slings, rails, lights, etc., are a product of combat and enhance the capability of the officer.
Plate carriers and external armor have also recently come a long way in comfort and accessibility. Do I feel it needs to be worn directing traffic at Main St. and Mayberry Ave., probably not. But in certain situations there is a justifiable need for the greater level of protection afforded.
Armored vehicles, the item that seems to get most people going, is also a product of technological advancement. Gone are the days when we would line the back of a van with old vests for protection. My department upgraded to surplus Bearcat type vehicles over a decade ago. While some would bemoan the need, I can tell you that we found bullet strikes on the exterior following college campus football riots. I can also tell you we have used them to approach and negotiate over large open areas, and evacuated citizens and personnel at barricades. It is all in the use.
There is a fine line to walk between safety, tactics, appearance, and public perception. Do some agencies go overboard? Very likely. Do individual officers? Yes, and that is a failure of leadership and doctrine. It is about the deployment of the assets, not the assets themselves.
I get what you're saying. The earlier "list of suggestions" sounded a lot like someone who has little concept of police work or leadership trying to 12-step a solution.
Attitude and mindset can't be disciplined into people. You have to hire for these traits, or at least for the potential for these traits. It makes things easier down the road. Yes, it can get hard to fill seats at the academy, especially if your agency is already in a staffing crunch, but if we hire better, we don't have to train personality or ethics, and it saves us grief later on. Back in the recent Las Vegas active shooter/LODD thread, a post mentioned that, with all the MMQBing and anti-government sentiment being directed at LE, you are more apt to get decent LEOs to jump ship, only to be replaced by head crackers. That will only make things worse.
Spiffy uniforms and nice polos do go a long way in projecting confidence and competence, but in 10 years of working in BDUs, I've never received a complaint due to my appearance. Professionalism shines through the uniform. The complaints I did get, and sustain (not many) came from things I said, did, or failed to do. No amount of spit and polish can fix that. Looking back now, as a new Sgt., I could care less if the officers in my squad choose to wear BDUs, pleated cargos, hidden pocket class Bs, or their class As on patrol (we have a lot of leeway- no blousing though). What matters is whether or not they perform their duties competently, courteously, courageously, and safely.
I was a SWAT guy until recently. Even before I knew my time was up (promotion=off the team), I cringed at being referred to as an "operator". I preferred the term "SWAT Officer", and then only when referring to us when we were doing SWAT stuff. Taking a cue from a consultant who is keenly aware of the liabilities and trends in SWAT, the team also went away from subdued patches for most of the work we (they) do. We have an MRAP; it has seen very limited use, but since we don't parade it around town and use it for dime bag raids, the public (my preference vs citizen or civilian) is for the most part, OK with it. Our chief and the team commander also did good work in outlining the issues with borrowing the county's Bearcat (which was supposed to be shared), and the budgetary shortfalls which precluded us from buying a more LE minded vehicle.
Some people have opined that this site is becoming "anti-LE". I've had similar thoughts myself. What I understand now is that often times, an OP will point to a specific story or department. What follows are comments like, "what's wrong with LE?", "police state", "cops need to...", and so on and so forth, without realizing that the conversation now, via the language used, lumps all LE into the mess with the specific department or officer mentioned.
LEO here (myself included) can do a better job of doing here what we do everyday: read between the lines and behind the words. We also have to do better in educating some of our wayward extended family.
Non-LEOs here would do well to consider that taking the poor actions and choices of some of us (the ones we ourselves often complain about, who give us a bad name) as representative of the whole, whether you mean to or not, is the same thing the anti-gunners do to all of us.
I'm on board with what your saying. You express a desire to see your profession (just like my medical job is a profession) tighten up in some areas and personnel. Same with me and mine. I used the VA and the current scandal as an example of a few (unfortunately) high-placed, now high-profile people who royally screwed the pooch and need to not only be replaced but charged federally if warranted. So we both have a desire to see our chosen careers viewed as professional and effective, not corrupted and rotting from within and held in disdain by the public that we serve.
I would have to see the carrier to comment, I have also seen this before. But we had just had a shoot out with a high ranking UBN member who was DRT. The fear of immediate retribution from UBN caused it. Was the public view of this officer probably poor yes. But given the circumstances I didn't see a problem with it.
They now have dress exterior soft carriers that I dream of because they can take items off the belt line which saves on officer related injuries and early retirement back injuries. IE saves money in the long run.
I also know vice and detectives who wear suits do not wear soft armor. However they do have external hard vest they put on over a dress shirt and tie when picking someone up or assisting patrol. This is partially done for easy officer IDing for LEO and the public. Now vice guys yes would have t shirts and what not but they are usually in and out with there stuff.
I really don't have a problem with body armor as it's a protective device. Hey, if you wanna wear BA with Level IV plates in June, knock yourself out! Our guys and gals wore that stuff in 120 degrees in Iraq so I have no issue with it. I have seen, and would recommend, BA that is the same color as a police uniform which would tend to blend in better.
Being always hot myself, dark blue or black in the summer would suck. The THP wears a tan colored shirt year round which looks sharp and wouldn't suck in the sun. Florida sheriff departments wear a white short-sleeved shirt (at least they used to) that while looking good also would be cooler in the heat. Finding a white BA set could be interesting though. Think I'd just get an oversized shirt and wear the armor underneath.
I liked it when cops were peace keepers not a military force to be hated. That being said I have dealt with cops that are quite honorable, a trait that is lacking through out society these days.. I couldn't imagine having a good day dealing with the filth and scum on a daily basis that is part of the job though.
Guys in Iraq and Afghanistan have trouble separating the good guys from the bad; see enough shit and they all look like the enemy or at least in sympathy with 'em. I would guess the same is true of cops. HOWEVER, it isn't Iraq or Afghanistan and the effort MUST be made to not see every citizen as a potential problem. As a former military guy I really wouldn't give a damn if my attitude turned off Iraqis or Afghans, but if I were a cop I wouldn't want that disdain right here in my homeland where I live, play, and work.
Like it or not, when you're the enforcement arm of the government, you're going to come under a lot of scrutiny.
There is much truth to that statement.
ForTehNguyen
06-29-14, 18:15
ending the drug war would fix most of this
Eurodriver
06-29-14, 18:34
ending the drug war would fix most of this
The drug war is what keeps most LEOs on this forum employed. A Marijuana arrest is made every 42 seconds.
Edit: Multiple Sources- https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+arrest+42+seconds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
We all know that prohibition didn't work, gun control doesn't work, but yet so many on this forum continue to support the failed policy of "drug control". I'd be all for this militarization of police if they actually went after violent criminals. Use those MRAPs, helos, tac vests, SBRs, Big Brother spy technology, etc all day long to take out Latin Kings and MS13 members. Instead, they use all their neat gadgets to arrest the elderly gentleman growing pot in his trailer. I guess promotion stats don't care if its a violent criminal going away for a drug charge or a guy minding his own business. Much safer for the team to go after the easier target.
I'm on board with what your saying. You express a desire to see your profession (just like my medical job is a profession) tighten up in some areas and personnel. Same with me and mine. I used the VA and the current scandal as an example of a few (unfortunately) high-placed, now high-profile people who royally screwed the pooch and need to not only be replaced but charged federally if warranted. So we both have a desire to see our chosen careers viewed as professional and effective, not corrupted and rotting from within and held in disdain by the public that we serve.
I try to refrain from posting much on these threads - my interactions have been fairly good with LEO. However I think this might be really the crux of the problem.
Media gives us examples daily of cops screwing up (big time!). That homeless guy in New Mexico, the LAPD cops shooting up the ladies during the Dorner manhunt, the flashbang in the kids crib, the shooting in N.C. Of that teenager who the parents were having trouble calming down.
What we, the public, rarely see is any sort of accountability or punishment. The media never has a follow up to what happens- is the cop fired? In jail? Back on the beat? And far too often, it seems when there is some follow up, the officer gets a slap on the wrist ( whats with internal investigations anyway! Not exactly impartial).
So,when the public sees mildly punished officers, combined with ever more aggressive tactics and equiptment, you get this growing perception of "us vs them." "Cops arent here to protect us, all they ever do is bust in wrong doors at 3am, fatally injure innocent kids, shoot my 3-legged dog, and get away scot free cuz there IA investigation lets them off."
More transparency, and accountability, would go a long way towards improving perception and public relations.
The drug war is what keeps most LEOs on this forum employed. A Marijuana arrest is made every 42 seconds.
Edit: Multiple Sources- https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+arrest+42+seconds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
We all know that prohibition didn't work, gun control doesn't work, but yet so many on this forum continue to support the failed policy of "drug control". I'd be all for this militarization of police if they actually went after violent criminals. Use those MRAPs, helos, tac vests, SBRs, Big Brother spy technology, etc all day long to take out Latin Kings and MS13 members. Instead, they use all their neat gadgets to arrest the elderly gentleman growing pot in his trailer. I guess promotion stats don't care if its a violent criminal going away for a drug charge or a guy minding his own business. Much safer for the team to go after the easier target.
That is one that could be debated to death. While alcohol is addictive it is no wear near as destructive heroin,crack,meth, or my favorite love boat. Old man will at some point sell some of his grow to some POS gang member. But actually I would be more in agreeance with legalizing pot and outlawing alcohol. But I will do you one better I think it is even ok to legalize everything but cut all aid on the streets and in the hospitals for users. That includes mental Health facilities that hard junkies will attend at some point.
But on another note I have only seen armored vehicles used on barricade subjects who have already attempted to shoot LEOs. And the only grow operation I have seen was inside. I hungout with the two offenders ( both un cuffed / after security sweep) in the living room and they played 70s rock while vice inventoried all their stuff.
The drug war is what keeps most LEOs on this forum employed. A Marijuana arrest is made every 42 seconds.
Edit: Multiple Sources- https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+arrest+42+seconds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
We all know that prohibition didn't work, gun control doesn't work, but yet so many on this forum continue to support the failed policy of "drug control". I'd be all for this militarization of police if they actually went after violent criminals. Use those MRAPs, helos, tac vests, SBRs, Big Brother spy technology, etc all day long to take out Latin Kings and MS13 members. Instead, they use all their neat gadgets to arrest the elderly gentleman growing pot in his trailer. I guess promotion stats don't care if its a violent criminal going away for a drug charge or a guy minding his own business. Much safer for the team to go after the easier target.
As much as I give a sh^t about marijuana.. I can agree with this point. I think it is how most Americans feel at this point in the journey of the Drug War. Having lived in Colorado for the past 3 months I guess I am starting to lean to the legalize it side.
Averageman
06-29-14, 23:27
I'm kind of anxious to see what happens when the community begins paying for the services on these vehicles. I'm not saying they don't have a purpose, but really an MRAP?
When you start looking at budgets, just how do you rationalize giving an Officer 200 rds of ammo a year to train with but, you do have a cool MRAP thats going to cost the salary of a couple of Officers just to change the tires, oil and filters?
I'm kind of anxious to see what happens when the community begins paying for the services on these vehicles. I'm not saying they don't have a purpose, but really an MRAP?
When you start looking at budgets, just how do you rationalize giving an Officer 200 rds of ammo a year to train with but, you do have a cool MRAP thats going to cost the salary of a couple of Officers just to change the tires, oil and filters?
This is really very simple, allow the police to carry any weapon that civilians are permitted to own. When it comes to armored vehicles, I really don't give a shit. In fact, we should have auctioned surplus MRAPs and 1151s to the highest bidder. Hell, I know there are some celebtards like Fifty Cent, Jay Leno, and that androgynous twit Bieber who would pay seven figures for one. After all, I'm sure that Iraqi civilians would have much preferred this strategy to our leaving a bunch of hardware behind for the next Islamist terrorist group to use.
We just had a murder in my city last week due to marijuana. Two men shot a 19 year old and killed him and wounded his step dad. It was a rip buy for all intents. Would this have happened if it was legal in AZ? My guess is yes. People are still going to do crooked shit and I'll bet we see some of this happen in Colorado and other places.
[QUOTE=ABNAK;1942195] If I were chief of a local popo department I would immediately institute the following (funds allowing of course):
. So you'd have a policy that compromises officer safety by forcing them forcing them to wear reflective items on their uniforms? Nevernind the increased cost of dress type uniforms with regard to care and maintenance. And are you going to fund replacements every time a name tag or badge is ripped off and lost/broken during a scuffle?
. This is beyond fracking stupid... Again you're willing to sacrifice officer safety for appearance sake. The AR is more effective and easier to master than the shotgun. It's the way of the future for LE and for good reason. If people are freaked out by seeing them being carried by good guys or in cruisers... those fearful fools should get some psychological assistance. In an active shooter or a hundred other scenarios there won't be time to get anything from the trunk.
. I'm dying to hear your definition of gung ho. Especially since you plan to discipline officers over gossipy nonsense. You should get some leadership training before being put in charge of anyone.
All of the above clearly shows you don't know what you don't know. It might make you feel better to spout off about how you'd fix all those "perceived" problems. But your ideas are so far out of touch it's like listening to an 8th grader explain how to save the world from hunger.
You know, there was a time, with much more brutal streets, that officers WALKED the neighborhoods carrying ONLY a revolver. There to protect the people, and basically seen as one of the people. Sure they wore a badge, but they were viewed upon differently than the police today who are wearing everything minus a hard plate filled plate carrier.
People quickly forget what law enforcement used to be. This is where I think the editors of American Cop magizine really hit the nail on the head, and many times. It's all about being a citizen, a civilian, but, at the same time being a public servant. That is ALL a police officer is. 100%a public servent, granted that status by the citizens they protect. I'm well aware of the fact of how dangerous it can be for an LEO to do their job, and how having them very well equipped is important, but there comes a point to which some/many of them are basically equipped to go into a straight out warzone. Some/Many Leo's commonly forget what it's all about, but then again, Many also stand up, and pride themselves on being ordinary people, and most of all, refer to themselves as civilans. Police are nothing more than citizen sheepdogs.
You don't need Mraps. You don't need 50 cal's. You need well trained, people with good, friendly outgoing personalities. This isn't delta, recon, seals etc. We don't need a bunch of commandos running around. That is not what the police are, and never should be. If police want public to respect them, work with them, look up to them, they need to take it back to how it was decades ago. The more militarized they get the less the avg public wants anything to do with them. Leos need ordinary people just as much as ordinary people need leos. :)
Moose-Knuckle
06-30-14, 01:56
Let me give an example for the reason many people have a bad opinion of cops.
I personally know a gent, in his seventies...Vietnam vet, very educated and well to do. Snappy dresser. OPEN CARRIES EVERY TIME, no prob ever. So, he goes in a place for lunch, orders, standing there pouring his drink, and is approached by a black detective, who asks him to step outside a minute. Now, this is early 2013 here in AL. Detective tells him he is under arrest. WHY?! For illegal carrying/possessing a weapon. NOONE at the store said a word to the cop about it. So, he is arrested, booked, and thrown into a cell with no food for half a day. NOTHING given to drink. After attorney gets ahold of DA, he is released, charges dropped, and the black detective is brought before him to apologize. THEY HAD TO MAKE THIS FOOL APOLOGISE. When he did, this man said is was half assed one at best. My point here: Since day one AL became a state, it has NEVER been illegal to open carry in this state. Yet since moving here a few years ago, Ive met & heard MANY stories of this happening. Costing people thousands of dollars, losing jobs, guns and having to even plea it out. COPS DONT KNOW THE F-ING LAWS THEMSELVES, or FLAT OUT choose to ignore them. This detective was TOLD the law, the guys son is a cop on the same force. HE IGNORED IT and arrested him anyway. Not a gangbanger with his ass hanging out. Not a meth head. Not a redneck with an AR and ammo belt strapped on. But an old, well dressed, unassuming gent just trying to sit down too lunch. Now, do stories like THIS encourage the general public to like & have trust & support cops, or could it possibly have the opposite effect? YOU DECIDE.
This honestly sounds more like a case of racism than the detective being badge heavy. The gentlemen should consult legal council and seek damages as his civil liberties were violated.
We just had a murder in my city last week due to marijuana. Two men shot a 19 year old and killed him and wounded his step dad. It was a rip buy for all intents. Would this have happened if it was legal in AZ? My guess is yes. People are still going to do crooked shit and I'll bet we see some of this happen in Colorado and other places.
People kill people over Air Jordans so of course they'll shoot each other over weed. What a few idiots might do is irrelevant to the conversation.
Actually it's not irrelevant.
People kill people over Air Jordans so of course they'll shoot each other over weed. What a few idiots might do is irrelevant to the conversation.
Actually it's not irrelevant.What's relevant? Are you saying legal weed sales are going to lead to more violent crime than illegal weed sales?
We just had a murder in my city last week due to marijuana. Two men shot a 19 year old and killed him and wounded his step dad. It was a rip buy for all intents. Would this have happened if it was legal in AZ? My guess is yes. People are still going to do crooked shit and I'll bet we see some of this happen in Colorado and other places.
Makes no sense....
What possible reason is there for people to do that over legal shit? When was the the last time there was a rip buy over Gin?
The war on drugs is the very fvcking definition of stupid government ideas. What was supposed to stop the importation and sale of whatever the government wanted to define as illicit has failed the most basic of defined purposes. Weed is so damned cheap and easy to get, high school kids in the suburbs can often get it easier than beer.
At the cost of trillions of dollars and de facto police state, fvck that bullshit.
Straight Shooter
06-30-14, 13:03
IMO- MOST of the type of people who want to see drugs legalized, pot & more...are low life, low functioning scum who will never amount to anything, and will further descend into addiction & poverty, bringing any children or family along with them. I call them dregs of society. Legalize drugs, and you will see YOUR next hospital bill skyrocket, cause you will be paying for their overdoses, accidents ect. You will see more deaths from DUI, and more people on dope who otherwise would not have even tried it had it remained illegal. Its a stoners fantasy & liberals wet dream that legalizing dope will all a sudden make everything ok.
IMO- MOST of the type of people who want to see drugs legalized, pot & more...are low life, low functioning scum who will never amount to anything, and will further descend into addiction & poverty, bringing any children or family along with them. I call them dregs of society. Legalize drugs, and you will see YOUR next hospital bill skyrocket, cause you will be paying for their overdoses, accidents ect. You will see more deaths from DUI, and more people on dope who otherwise would not have even tried it had it remained illegal. Its a stoners fantasy & liberals wet dream that legalizing dope will all a sudden make everything ok.
Because post-Prohibition experiences went exactly like this.....
.....Not.
Look into the history of drug prohibition in this country and you'll quickly learn that it is deeply rooted in racism and government paranoia. Look back at the Reefer Madness campaign to see that they were trying to scare white men into thinking that pot will make their daughters have sex with black jazz performers.... Effing idiocy.
The movement to prohibit MJ, come from the depression era and was meant to restrict Mexican workers.....
In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”
BoringGuy45
06-30-14, 13:24
Makes no sense....
What possible reason is there for people to do that over legal shit? When was the the last time there was a rip buy over Gin?
Happens all the time with prescription pills. Now, let me caveat what I say by saying that I support the legalization of marijuana. I've never touched the stuff, never will, and have a low opinion of most of potheads (not the guys who just smoke it at parties and such, the guys who never shut the **** up about weed and think about nothing else). But generally speaking, the vast, VAST majority of people who try pot never have any other issues with their life, most kids who smoke it generally grow out of it and move on with their lives when they grow up. I don't see how legalized weed would be any more destructive to our society than legal alcohol is.
However, there will still be crime committed due to marijuana. Lots of people would continue to deal without a license because **** society and its laws. Like with prescription drugs like Oxy, Xanex, and Aderall, people would get robbed for their drugs. You can guarantee that the FDA would probably get involved and regulate or prohibit certain types of cannabis in the name of consumer safety. Like Cuban cigars, people would still demand the illegal stuff because, being still illegal, people would assume that it's only illegal because it's the best, and of course, again, because **** society and its laws. Well, someone might say, "Well, then when you legalize it, make it so it's completely unregulated!" Sorry, ain't gonna happen. This is the government we're talking about; wish in one hand, crap in the other, see which one fills up first. Again, I support making it legal, but we'll never see the headline: MARIJUANA LEGALIZED. CRIME AND UNEMPLOYMENT DROP TO ZERO PERCENT WITHIN MINUTES! WORLD PEACE DECLARED![/QUOTE]
I do not believe at all that crime will drop to zero, however, it significantly reduces almost all the issues with illegal importation and the drug cartels. It greatly reduces police enforcement needs freeing them to do things other than dynamically enter the wrong house to shoot random Boston Terriers and other such shenanigans.
The people that are currently using drugs and being low lives will continue unabated.
However, like with alcohol, people won;t be permitted to DUI and businesses may still randomly test and prohibit their employees from being under the influence.
Look at how Portugal decriminalize pot. They legalized it and use went down.
If you think that marijuana or hashish use does not cause issues, you need to do some more research. Arguing that pot or hash is less harmful than alcohol is pretty naive.
There are several issues prevalent among cannabis users, and some problems can arise after first time use:
-Increased risk of other drug use
-Dependent drug use - risk of heavy dependence
-Lung problems
-Memory impairment
-Psychosocial development problems and mental health problems
-Poorer cognitive performance associated with early initiation and persistent use between the early teenage years and adulthood
A more permissive environment fuels the impression of less risk associated with the use of cannabis products, and this lower risk perception can predict increased overall use. This holds true in for example Portugal, where drug use has increased after they decriminalized drugs in 2001. Not just for cannabis, but all drugs.
The USA has less than 5% of the world's population and over 25% of the world's prison population. No coincidence.
ColtSeavers
06-30-14, 15:15
The USA has less than 5% of the world's population and over 25% of the world's population. No coincidence.
Umm... You lost me here. In need of an edit or just me?
If you think that marijuana or hashish use does not cause issues, you need to do some more research. Arguing that pot or hash is less harmful than alcohol is pretty naive.
There are several issues prevalent among cannabis users, and some problems can arise after first time use:
-Increased risk of other drug use
-Dependent drug use - risk of heavy dependence
-Lung problems
-Memory impairment
-Psychosocial development problems and mental health problems
-Poorer cognitive performance associated with early initiation and persistent use between the early teenage years and adulthood
A more permissive environment fuels the impression of less risk associated with the use of cannabis products, and this lower risk perception can predict increased overall use. This holds true in for example Portugal, where drug use has increased after they decriminalized drugs in 2001. Not just for cannabis, but all drugs.
Almost all of these bad effects are the same for alcohol; yet not a soul here is suggesting that we initiate another war on alcohol. We learned way back that Prohibition doesn't work for squat. Unfortunately that lesson hasn't found its way into the though process of a lot of people whose budgets and power base comes from a war on something. The majority of the crimes associated with druggies are covered by other statutes. IG's example of the people killed during a rip off buy are already covered by murder and robbery statutes. Did making MJ illegal stop those people from getting killed NO. Same goes for all the other activity. DUI covers a lot of things other than alcohol. Robbery, rape, murder all covered. A million different laws, trillions of dollars and an unknown number Contitutional violations in the name of the WoD and we still think its a good idea. Never mind that illicit drugs are easier to get than an RX for painkillers.
Sorry, but the tactics used to fight the war on drugs is akin to the OTC dumbasses. They aren't working as intended; well unless your intent is to fleece tax layers and figure out new ways to work around the Constitution.
I agree with the whole figure out a way to minimize people's abuse of drugs and the collateral damage they cause; but what we are doing isn't working. Time to try something new.
MountainRaven
06-30-14, 17:46
I just want to point out that lots of kids do illegal things because they're illegal and, therefore, cool.
Because America. Because f___ you, you don't tell me what to do. &c.
Makes no sense....
What possible reason is there for people to do that over legal shit? When was the the last time there was a rip buy over Gin?
The war on drugs is the very fvcking definition of stupid government ideas. What was supposed to stop the importation and sale of whatever the government wanted to define as illicit has failed the most basic of defined purposes. Weed is so damned cheap and easy to get, high school kids in the suburbs can often get it easier than beer.
At the cost of trillions of dollars and de facto police state, fvck that bullshit.
Well, crims do like to hold up liquor stores, so there is that.
But then that brings us back to equivocating between alcohol and marijuana.
ColtSeavers
06-30-14, 17:52
Seen plenty of video of people breaking into and holding up places for cigarettes as well thanks to John Bunnell.
Seen plenty of video of people breaking into and holding up places for cigarettes as well thanks to John Bunnell.
You can thank the many applied taxes for driving the cost to such high prices.
Bolt_Overide
07-01-14, 07:04
Legalize all drugs, tax them, regulate them.. deficit gone in 5 years.
IMO- MOST of the type of people who want to see drugs legalized, pot & more...are low life, low functioning scum who will never amount to anything, and will further descend into addiction & poverty, bringing any children or family along with them. I call them dregs of society. Legalize drugs, and you will see YOUR next hospital bill skyrocket, cause you will be paying for their overdoses, accidents ect. You will see more deaths from DUI, and more people on dope who otherwise would not have even tried it had it remained illegal. Its a stoners fantasy & liberals wet dream that legalizing dope will all a sudden make everything ok.The lowlifes already have VERY EASY access to drugs. Most of the people I know who want to legalize drugs do it because they are able to think rationally and don't fall for the FUD nonsense you see a lot of people, like you, putting out there. Do you have Reefer Madness on Blu ray?
Voodoo_Man
07-01-14, 07:15
Legalize all drugs, tax them, regulate them.. deficit gone in 5 years.
Not quite that easy, nothing ever is.
PatrioticDisorder
07-01-14, 07:32
IMO- MOST of the type of people who want to see drugs legalized, pot & more...are low life, low functioning scum who will never amount to anything, and will further descend into addiction & poverty, bringing any children or family along with them. I call them dregs of society. Legalize drugs, and you will see YOUR next hospital bill skyrocket, cause you will be paying for their overdoses, accidents ect. You will see more deaths from DUI, and more people on dope who otherwise would not have even tried it had it remained illegal. Its a stoners fantasy & liberals wet dream that legalizing dope will all a sudden make everything ok.
Why do you want to impose upon others what you don't approve of? If someone smokes pot in their basement they harm no one. Washington state did it right when they legalized it, they set parameters up on what can be considered driving while high. They actually punished actions that put others at risk and legalized those that didn't... I can same the same for heroin, I don't give a shit who shoots it up.
Legalize drugs (sin tax it if it makes you feel better), created harsh penalties for those who act irresponsibly using the drugs (driving under the influence, giving children contact highs, etc.) and treat drug users like the pariahs they are... Then enjoy watching drug use become a virtual non-issue in this country.
J-Dub.. you've made three or four useless comments here as though you actually want the thread shut down. Does it not concern you that the most technically proficient segment of law enforcement is becoming or trying to become privatized? Actually tax free and privatized.... You know, like a religion......
I appreciate your frustration as a LEO, but this is no joking matter.
Please, that's an insult.
(DELETED)
I do wear your "ideal" uniform every day. It is one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever worn (besides a powerlifting bench shirt). Its hot, tight, and makes it damned near impossible to do simple movements that are required when your doing cop shit. You know like chasing people, hoping fences, climbing through windows......getting out of your car. But Im sure all the old timers that bitch at me for not doing my job when THEY leave THIER vehicle unlocked and THEIR shit gets stolen are super pleased to see my shiny badge and tailored pants.
My honest opinion is that most people are retarded, now I know that anecdotal right now, but Im working on a questionnaire to give people to prove it lol. So my wish would be for people to realize, its a job. Now with that said ya it does come with some burden, like being able to take people's "freedom" away. BUT in keeping with the thought that "its a job", why don't you take a look around your office or place of employment. How many people work there that are completely incompetent in your opinion? How many are terrible at their job? How many HATE their job? How many show up for a paycheck?
Well I'm here to tell you that your work place, is just like EVERY work place, including Police Dept's.
But ya I know "POLICE STATE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was a joke (ie tongue in cheek). Certainly not worth four duplicate posts...lol.
It was a joke (ie tongue in cheek). Certainly not worth four duplicate posts...lol.
Something is wrong with the M4carbine servers as there are repeated timeouts, database errors, and access issues.
Eurodriver
07-01-14, 12:06
It was a joke (ie tongue in cheek). Certainly not worth four duplicate posts...lol.
Are you off today? Head out to a sports bar and go hang with all of your friends. You know, those 45 year old grown men wearing jerseys with their own names embroidered on it - acting like a football game is going to make or break their life. ;)
Something is wrong with the M4carbine servers as there are repeated timeouts, database errors, and access issues.
I know, again humor...sarcasm...whatever you'd like to call it.
Here's the deal folks, most of what I type is a ****ing JOKE, HUMOR, SARCASM, or simply pointing out double standards........its general discussion for Gawds sake....
(p.s. I don't speak ebonics in my personal life, yo)
Are you off today? Head out to a sports bar and go hang with all of your friends. You know, those 45 year old grown men wearing jerseys with their own names embroidered on it - acting like a football game is going to make or break their life. ;)
Dude its FUTBOL today.....and im not getting in the way of Capt. American Soccer Team today....no way.
Let me start by saying I completely get the desire to ensure those who are entrusted with significant authority do not abuse it. I feel exactly the same way and in general try to live by those principals. I actually despise hearing LEO’s call non-LEO’s civilians. In my experience it’s usually dripping with attitude (even if just a little), and I take great pride as a former military member in pointing out to those using the term that they (as LEO’s) are also civilians. Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Within LE we have some who are not civilians (MPs, SP/SF, Army CID, NCIS, AFOSI), though even in those agencies they have some personnel who are civilian. But if there is no “E” or “O” in front of your pay grade, and you don’t get your paycheck from DoD – you are a civilian. That includes myself now that I’m off active duty. Within the civilian world, we have private citizens and public servants. I’m a public servant and proud to be serving in that capacity.
The concern I have is that so many folks are focused on the negative reports that we all see in the media. Yes, there are crooked LEO’s, firefighters, politicians, teachers, etc. But the media rarely tells the story of the largest portion of LEO’s – those of us who work very hard day after day to keep our communities safe. Think about how disgusted you are when you see a LEO has been involved in some criminal activity, or has abused his authority to the detriment of a private citizen. Now multiply that disgust a thousand fold and you will understand what we as LEO’s feel because of how it makes us look, and how it violates the public’s trust in us. It makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs and that is bad for everyone. We aren’t perfect, and we make mistakes just like any employee at any other job. We are held to a higher standard – as we should be. But for some reason, there are a LOT of people in the world who are convinced they can do the job better, or tell us how to do it better, than we can. I’ve not seen another profession (other than maybe food servers) where the rest of the planet seems to think it knows better than we do, and feels obligated to tell us how we can improve.
The best advice I can offer is to do ride-alongs with your local PD or SO. And don’t ride on the day shift in the quiet suburbs. Sign up for a midnight shift in the part of town you’d otherwise avoid. See what it’s really like to be out there and interact with people who are a legitimate threat. Get that uneasy feeling that if things go sideways right now, the backup is only a few minutes away. More importantly get to know the LEO’s and see how most of us are good people doing a very demanding job. Maybe you’ll understand that the tactical teams wear camouflage because it’s functional when they are posted up on a perimeter, and not because they think they are some kind of tier 1 team. Standing on perimeter in a while dress shirt may look professional on the news, but it also makes it easier for the bad guy to see and shoot you. It took the death of a deputy in Florida to get that concept to sink in and the upper level leadership in the agency to make the change to the dark green uniforms. It’s great that many of you want the LEO’s to look professional and not militarized… but in a job where they get shot at, you need to think about what’s more important.
I don’t care that I can be filmed while arresting someone. If I’m in the public view, then I have no expectation of privacy. But what I do find objectionable is when only edited clips are played on the news in such a manner that they make the LEO look like he is doing something inappropriate. Take the ASU professor who was arrested recently. If you google the video, or see it on the larger news websites, they start the footage at the point that the officer is already trying to effect an arrest. They don’t show the beginning where the officer is beyond patient with her while she talks down to him and ignores his request for her ID. Watching it on news outlets would have you believe that the officer got out of his car and man-handled her. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve seen several posters on this site who are VERY quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion and condemn LEO’s. In fact, some of the comments I see here make me think we have several members who are sovereign citizen types.
Most of what LEO’s do day in and day out is not that exciting. The few times when things get amped up, are the times that make it into headlines. So many folks are quick to draw conclusions about deadly force encounters without knowing all the facts, and more importantly without understanding how deadly force is truly applied in this country. By that I mean, most I’ve seen post do not know when it’s legal to use deadly force, and when it’s within an agency policy. Many people form their opinion base on what they see in the movies and on TV. Those venues rarely get it right. There are plenty of “good shoots” in terms of policy and legality that people who are ignorant of the law question. The homeless man in Albuquerque is an example and was referenced in this thread. The police were up there negotiating with him for hours. But what was shown on the news was the last few seconds. Even then, people still underestimate edged weapons. It’s not that we as LEO’s have a problem with people wanting to understand why we made the decisions we made. But try to get some level of understanding about the legalities involved before condemning someone because it doesn’t fit into the fantasy world you created after watching 100 episodes of CHiPs. This is another area where the media makes a mess of things because they not only don’t understand the laws… they have a severe disdain for our mil/LE world.
Regarding the original topic of LE militarization… it’s a natural progression. As the criminals leverage more/newer technology and weapons, so must the LE community. There is a time and place for tactical LE teams, MRAPs (or similar armored vehicles), M-4’s, etc. There is also a time a place for a LEO having friendly, positive interactions with the public. The days of walking a beat with a revolver are decades behind us, and not because LEO’s wanted cooler toys. Check the history – the bad guys have always obtained the newer weaponry first and forced the LE agencies to (most often begrudgingly) upgrade after. We knew for years that rifles are the ideal fight stopping small arm. But it took the North Hollywood shootout for LE administrators to accept their necessity on a large scale. I often wonder if that incident hadn’t been caught on camera if it would have had that effect on LE.
And please stop blaming the “war on drugs” for LEO’s needing to be armed with rifles and have MRAPs. I personally could not care less if Marijuana is legal or not. In our agency we rarely ever chase after guys trafficking weed. If we stumble upon it we act accordingly, but we target violent criminals and most of them are selling cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. We target gangs, bank robbers, murders, carjackers, human traffickers, etc. All of those people have the propensity to be violent and cause harm to LEO’s and citizens alike. Hell, several years ago a deputy was killed by a man who was wanted for kiddie porn. They showed up at his house and he opened fire without warning. Criminals are who they are by nature. If weed is legalized, those criminals are not going to suddenly get a real job and become productive members of society. They will transition to some other illicit activity that allows them to make money.
The bottom line is it’s all about leadership. If you have a Sheriff or Chief who understands and practices leadership, who genuinely wants to protect the public and mentor his LEO’s, then everything else will fall into place. If that agency has a SWAT team, they will be used judiciously. If they have an MRAP, it will be utilized appropriately. And leadership isn’t telling your LEO’s that if they use a particular word then they will be fired. Explain their mission, remind them of their parameters, and then tell them your expectations. Hold them to it, and they will do good work. The measure of a good LEO or a good LE agency is not what kind of gear or uniforms they have. It’s how well they do their job while minimizing the negative impact on those around them. Accountability is very important in the LE world – but those who would be involved in that process need to educate themselves and recognize that there are reasons things are done a certain way. Be honest with yourself and admit your ignorance on the subject hinders your ability to properly assess the agency/LEO/situation. Talking about breeding out the arrogance of LEO’s is indicative of the same. Telling someone how to accomplish a job you know little to nothing about is the ultimate arrogance in my book.
Let me start by saying......SNIP for bandwidth
I'll agree with the majority of your points. If a wash and wear type uniform is more comfortable/cooler, no problem. They don't have to be or need to be BDU's/ACU's/Multicam/whatever. How about an OD, dark blue, or tan uniform you can leave untucked for comfort and coolness (temperature cool). Shouldn't be an issue.
The problem I see with militarization is that when you're issued a bunch of hammers, and the mindset is hammers and how to use them, everything starts looking like a nail. I don't have stats from the past but the whole dog shooting thing coming to the fore these days is a bit over the top. Unless you're having a dog set upon you by a criminal, you don't kill it. You have batons, mace, tasers, etc. that apparently there is no problem using them on people but a dog is shot. Would seem like some of these guys with the hammers are just itching for a chance to use them and a dog doesn't attract the official scrutiny a human would. If you're chasing a perp and jump into someone who's not involved fenced in backyard and their fenced in dog doesn't like it YOU f****d up, not the dog. Pull out the non-lethal stuff or get chewed on....take your pick. These shootings of dogs for "officer safety", namely in cases where it's the officer who put himself in that predicament, is bullshit. Just read one about a tac-team who shot a dog while it ran away from them after they came out of the woods looking for a perp. Told the lady that it was because her dog couldn't be allowed to fight with the K-9 accompanying them! Horseshit.
Don't mean to beat the dog drum but it's a pet peeve.....no kids, my dogs are my kids. If they were killed in my fenced in yard I'd end up in jail, guaranteed. One of these days some cop is gonna cap a dog for no reason and the owner is going to be one of those individuals who act before they think through the consequences.
I'll agree with the majority of your points. If a wash and wear type uniform is more comfortable/cooler, no problem. They don't have to be or need to be BDU's/ACU's/Multicam/whatever. How about an OD, dark blue, or tan uniform you can leave untucked for comfort and coolness (temperature cool). Shouldn't be an issue.
The problem I see with militarization is that when you're issued a bunch of hammers, and the mindset is hammers and how to use them, everything starts looking like a nail. I don't have stats from the past but the whole dog shooting thing coming to the fore these days is a bit over the top. Unless you're having a dog set upon you by a criminal, you don't kill it. You have batons, mace, tasers, etc. that apparently there is no problem using them on people but a dog is shot. Would seem like some of these guys with the hammers are just itching for a chance to use them and a dog doesn't attract the official scrutiny a human would. If you're chasing a perp and jump into someone who's not involved fenced in backyard and their fenced in dog doesn't like it YOU f****d up, not the dog. Pull out the non-lethal stuff or get chewed on....take your pick. These shootings of dogs for "officer safety", namely in cases where it's the officer who put himself in that predicament, is bullshit. Just read one about a tac-team who shot a dog while it ran away from them after they came out of the woods looking for a perp. Told the lady that it was because her dog couldn't be allowed to fight with the K-9 accompanying them! Horseshit.
Don't mean to beat the dog drum but it's a pet peeve.....no kids, my dogs are my kids. If they were killed in my fenced in yard I'd end up in jail, guaranteed. One of these days some cop is gonna cap a dog for no reason and the owner is going to be one of those individuals who act before they think through the consequences.
Apparently when you "snipped for bandwidth" you also didn't read the snipped section, because your response was exactly what El Cid was addressing in the first 5 paragraphs. Congrats.
I'll agree with the majority of your points. If a wash and wear type uniform is more comfortable/cooler, no problem. They don't have to be or need to be BDU's/ACU's/Multicam/whatever. How about an OD, dark blue, or tan uniform you can leave untucked for comfort and coolness (temperature cool). Shouldn't be an issue.
The problem I see with militarization is that when you're issued a bunch of hammers, and the mindset is hammers and how to use them, everything starts looking like a nail. I don't have stats from the past but the whole dog shooting thing coming to the fore these days is a bit over the top. Unless you're having a dog set upon you by a criminal, you don't kill it. You have batons, mace, tasers, etc. that apparently there is no problem using them on people but a dog is shot. Would seem like some of these guys with the hammers are just itching for a chance to use them and a dog doesn't attract the official scrutiny a human would. If you're chasing a perp and jump into someone who's not involved fenced in backyard and their fenced in dog doesn't like it YOU f****d up, not the dog. Pull out the non-lethal stuff or get chewed on....take your pick. These shootings of dogs for "officer safety", namely in cases where it's the officer who put himself in that predicament, is bullshit. Just read one about a tac-team who shot a dog while it ran away from them after they came out of the woods looking for a perp. Told the lady that it was because her dog couldn't be allowed to fight with the K-9 accompanying them! Horseshit.
Don't mean to beat the dog drum but it's a pet peeve.....no kids, my dogs are my kids. If they were killed in my fenced in yard I'd end up in jail, guaranteed. One of these days some cop is gonna cap a dog for no reason and the owner is going to be one of those individuals who act before they think through the consequences.
I completely agree regarding dogs. My dogs are my kids as well and I will protect them in the same manner as a parent would a small child.
As for the "everything is looking like a nail" it goes back to the leadership. If the Sheriff says go forth and shoot dogs to protect yourself, that's what will happen. In our agency it has happened and it sucks. But we have used everything from flashbangs to fire extinguishers to ward off aggressive animals. The dog doesn't know I am a LEO or have a search warrant. It's just doing its job.
Something is wrong with the M4carbine servers as there are repeated timeouts, database errors, and access issues.
Understatement of the week that. :cool:
El Cid - Nice post above with some great content.
I'm reading through The First Rule of Policing - and the Harm It Does (http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-first-rule-of-policing-and-the-harm-it-does-part-i/) right now. He makes some interesting points regarding police training and the mindset that's been inculcated.
The attitude was that so long as the officers went home OK, it didn’t matter that civilians were hurt or killed. A typical response to criticism on this point was that “The most important thing, Calibre’s founders argued, wasn’t that 28 suspects who’d displayed life-threatening behavior had been shot, but that none of the officers had lost their lives.” Scott Baltic, Be Careful Out There, Chicago Reader (Nov. 21, 1991).
titsonritz
07-01-14, 16:59
http://weaponsman.com/?p=16386
QuietShootr
07-01-14, 17:03
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke
Pretty much true.
QuietShootr
07-01-14, 17:10
Finally I find most people who complain about LEO doing xyz, are fine when their fellow citizens do it.
You are correct. The police should NOT be better armed than the general public.
I completely agree regarding dogs. My dogs are my kids as well and I will protect them in the same manner as a parent would a small child.
As for the "everything is looking like a nail" it goes back to the leadership. If the Sheriff says go forth and shoot dogs to protect yourself, that's what will happen. In our agency it has happened and it sucks. But we have used everything from flashbangs to fire extinguishers to ward off aggressive animals. The dog doesn't know I am a LEO or have a search warrant. It's just doing its job.
You're spot on, leadership is everything in an organization. I know it was in the Army. A unit run on a short leash will always have shitbags but how they're dealt with is the difference between that unit and one that is more lax.
El Cid, very well written post above.
I'm an old guy and wish to assure all about one solid fact: square hatted, revolver toting cops of yesteryear committed frequent grievous civil rights violations(especially beatings)as part of officially sanctioned but unwritten policy. These actions took place on the sides of roads, in parking lots, in patrol cars, in citizens' homes, and in jails. Today we have more transparency and more competent leadership in law enforcement. My opinion is that choosing good leaders and providing excellent training are the solutions to perceived problems. A prick is a prick whether he(or she)wears a taxi driver's cap and low quarter shoes or something militaristic looking. A department that practices selective hiring and provides excellent pre service and in service training and hires and promotes good leaders should have a greatly reduced number of pricks, idiots, and other incompetents. These departments cost lots of money to create and maintain--so don't bitch too much about your taxes.
I'm an old guy and wish to assure all about one solid fact: square hatted, revolver toting cops of yesteryear committed frequent grievous civil rights violations(especially beatings)as part of officially sanctioned but unwritten policy. These actions took place on the sides of roads, in parking lots, in patrol cars, in citizens' homes, and in jails. Today we have more transparency and more competent leadership in law enforcement. My opinion is that choosing good leaders and providing excellent training are the solutions to perceived problems. A prick is a prick whether he(or she)wears a taxi driver's cap and low quarter shoes or something militaristic looking. A department that practices selective hiring and provides excellent pre service and in service training and hires and promotes good leaders should have a greatly reduced number of pricks, idiots, and other incompetents. These departments cost lots of money to create and maintain--so don't bitch too much about your taxes.
You hit the nail on the head Sir.
Issued some infractions and deleted some posts.
There's no need to punish those of you who were having a productive conversation, so we now return you to your normal programming.
If you were on the receiving end this round, this thread will continue without you.
I well remember Calibre Press' Street Survival seminars. It was a case of the private sector doing something that agencies themselves were remiss on. The first 20 or so minutes showed more pictures of dead cops than any sane person wanted to see. They wanted to get your attention, and they damn well succeeded. I also have a crystal clear recollection of the shotgun going off onstage as I dived for the floor. But by the end of the Seminar everyone had a better mindset. It sure changed mine. Between that and the development of good wearable body armor (also a private sector development) a lot of lives got saved.
As to the "militarization" drift--it makes me queasy as hell. I don't even like dark-tinted squad car windows and sunglasses, let alone MRAPs.
"The attitude was that so long as the officers went home OK, it didn’t matter that civilians were hurt or killed."
I'm not quite sure how that assumption or affirmation was deduced, but in my locale and training, its complete bulls**t. Im sorry to burst your bubble, but the first things taught at academies across the country is Constitutional Rights, and Case Law pertaining to those rights. Whats a search? Whats a frisk? Whats probable cause? Whats reasonable suspicion? What does case law determine when dealing with situation XYZ? That's first, why? You ask...... Well because if you violate someone's rights, even if they just killed a bus full of nuns, they'll walk free or the case will be tainted. And throughout one's training is it continuously reiterated, because its something that could kill a case, get you fired, and get you killed.
My (and every cop I work with) goal is to do things the right way, so if 1. If I'm up on a witness stand a defense attorney isn't going to make me look like a chump. 2. I don't violate people's rights or P&P 3. See #2 so I don't get fired. (in no particular order)
I have NEVER heard a firearms instructor, or any instructor for that matter, say "Well as long as you go home....who cares?" Because that's bullsh*t. Its more like this in training..."So why did you make that decision? Well lets look at Graham V. Connor and evaluate if you used lawful force" Then the training exercise is dissected and you LEARN from it.
Trust me, we are well aware that there are plenty of people (I'd guess about 75%-85% of the population) that hate our guts (most for not other reason but we're "tha man"). We don't want to do shit that could land us in prison, because believe it or not I'd rather not be judge by people that I know hate me because of my job.
On militarization. Whats militarization? Where do we draw the line? Am I "militarized" because I have a semi auto AR in a rack next to me????? Is that scary militarization????? Yes we have an MRAP, it cost us I believe a couple hundred bucks. Do we ever use it? Nope, and I hope we don't have to, because I'd think its best use would be to extricate wounded folks from an active shooter scene or something of that sort. As far as maintenance, well we have techs that fix road graders, dump trucks, semi's, so I'd think they could work on an MRAP. Do I like SWAT? No. I wont ever be SWAT, not my cup of tea....Im not hoorah enough. Do we over use them? Nope. Unless its a barricaded suspect with a hostage, or a high risk FELONY warrant, SWAT's not coming.
P.S. the supreme court has ruled that a sworn law enforcement officer has a duty to intervene if a citizen is being harmed by a government third party who is acting outside of law. We all know this, and are taught it.
double p.s. on the dog situation, I love dogs, I'd rather be chasing birds behind them every day Im at work lol. So I don't really want to have to shoot fido, however if its an attack call and I've got a vicious dog on the loose, fido is going to get TAP'ed. Loud boisterous lab just looking to protect mom? Nah, I'll probably just pet him. I know its crazy, a cop with a heart.....
http://weaponsman.com/?p=16386
Seriously needs to be read by everyone.
Until the good cops take public stands against this, they will continue unabated. Simply saying, "My agency doesn't do that....." doesn't change the reality that it is happening.
And please stop blaming the “war on drugs” for LEO’s needing to be armed with rifles and have MRAPs. I personally could not care less if Marijuana is legal or not. In our agency we rarely ever chase after guys trafficking weed.
Case in point.....
See the thread about the Martinsville, IN police getting an MRAP. The police officer in an interview blamed returning vets knowing how to set IEDs as justification for getting an MRAP. Fvcking hell.
Is it unfortunate that all officers and agencies get wrapped in the perception of the fvck ups. Yes. But until officers actually take a stand against the fvck ups and not wax poetically about how they are doing it right and that the public is just over reacting, they are part of the problem and irrelevant to the solution.
. But until officers actually take a stand against the fvck ups and not wax poetically about how they are doing it right and that the public is just over reacting, they are part of the problem and irrelevant to the solution.
What does "take a stand" mean????? Do you want me to do something that's pointless like say "I don't like Officers that do illegal things because at the end of the day we all take the heat for it"???? Is that taking a stand? What do you consider taking a stand?? I'd venture to say that any Officer that is doing things the right way doesn't want to read headlines about some idiot that did something illegal. But how am I to take a stand against LAPD whupping someones ass for nothing, when I live 2000miles away and have nothing to do with the situation, other than the fact that I have the same job???????
Here's a thought, as gun owners we're told "WE are the problem" Gun owners are why there are so many school shootings. When in fact schools have never been safer. But the media isn't going to say that, are they? They aren't going to say that more guns = less violence.
Same goes for Police incidents. Yep according to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck you live in a time when Police are more corrupt and violent then ever. Which is bullshit, and anyone who lived or worked in L.E. during the 50's and 60's could attest to that. But headlines sell. There are more cameras, and self proclaimed pundits than ever, which give you the elusion that we live in a massive police state where people are being killed and beaten everyday for mowing their lawn. Which again is bullshit.
But hey, that's only common sense and reason talking.
QuietShootr
07-07-14, 10:01
It's simple. EVERY one of these cases we hear about where an officer goes over the top with something, it comes out that he had been disciplined or otherwise talked to about it before, or his co-workers thought he was a gung-ho squirrel, or something like that. Don't even try to tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. My two best friends are cops, and I hear these stories all the time - the difference being there is a guy on their department who they KNOW is a shithead - he escalates situations where everyone else can calm them down, his solution to everything is 'take everyone to jail', and there is a whole list of other behaviors that are totally ****ed up that I can't even go into publicly. Several of his co-workers got together and did something about it. Shithead is now on unpaid admin leave pending being shit canned at the next Police Commissioners meeting in two weeks.
That's what take a stand means. Not "Gee, I sure wish old Bob would cool out a little bit - but when he starts cracking skulls I have to go in behind him and help."
What does "take a stand" mean????? Do you want me to do something that's pointless like say "I don't like Officers that do illegal things because at the end of the day we all take the heat for it"???? Is that taking a stand? What do you consider taking a stand?? I'd venture to say that any Officer that is doing things the right way doesn't want to read headlines about some idiot that did something illegal. But how am I to take a stand against LAPD whupping someones ass for nothing, when I live 2000miles away and have nothing to do with the situation, other than the fact that I have the same job???????
Here's a thought, as gun owners we're told "WE are the problem" Gun owners are why there are so many school shootings. When in fact schools have never been safer. But the media isn't going to say that, are they? They aren't going to say that more guns = less violence.
Same goes for Police incidents. Yep according to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck you live in a time when Police are more corrupt and violent then ever. Which is bullshit, and anyone who lived or worked in L.E. during the 50's and 60's could attest to that. But headlines sell. There are more cameras, and self proclaimed pundits than ever, which give you the elusion that we live in a massive police state where people are being killed and beaten everyday for mowing their lawn. Which again is bullshit.
But hey, that's only common sense and reason talking.
[QUOTE=QuietShootr;1945821... and I hear these stories all the time - ....[/QUOTE]
Those stories are certainly not hard to come by. Even if you are not LEO, if you are around LEO it doesn't take long at all to start hearing them. It's not like it's a big secret.
What really makes it bad is like this incident in I think CA.. this past week I believe. A woman starts walking across the Interstate and the video ends up showing the LEO on top of her wailing away at her head. Now let's just say he's the model LEO and she was spitting on him or had a weapon we can't see or whatever.... ... the problem is the LEO spokesperson get's on the news and says the lady has "no injuries".... So either she has a really tough face or he needs to learn how to land a punch... but why on earth would the spokesperson say that? ... it's like Jay Carney... he is paid to spin, lie, do whatever to make Obama sound good..... But when you have an issue that appears to be a problem from a video snippet.... you don't then place a spokesperson who is also supposed to be serving the public and have them take sides.
Same thing happened last week or so with a dog... The LEO are looking for a little girl. They go into somone's yard and shoot his dog... totally unrelated to the missing girl. Found the girl in her basement. The public goes nuts. But then.... the Police Chief get's on TV and says.... I've seen less outcry when people have been killed...... as though to say..... you, the public are being unreasonable because you set a standard by not caring about a human death and we all know an animal death is of lesser importance..... and he seemed very sincere and perplex4d by the matter..... as though, imo anyway, that he simply doesn't get it.... His reality is something's dead... ok, at least it wasn't a human.... it's as though how it happened is already water over the dam.... or as Hillary says... what difference does it make at this point....
It's unfortunate that so many want to spin it, make comparisons to 'it could be worse', or even over dramatize it and pretend the public is believing the sky is falling. Most people know none of that is happening. It's bad enough it happens for whatever reason, it is made worse by all the twisted logic applied after the fact.
What do you think that MRAP and government loaned M16s are for? They aren't to fight crime in small towns of 10K people that haven't had a murder since 1960.
They are going to be used to confiscate your guns and property.
Lol this is a pointless discussion.
I cant for the life of me figure out why I'm so jaded, and hate going to work every day.........................
If I were chief of a local popo department I would immediately institute the following (funds allowing of course):
1) No more fatigues, no more bloused pants in boots.
2) Button-down "dress" style shirt with no sewn-on name tags. Departmental patch allowed on sleeve, all other accoutrements would be shiny badge and nameplate. Kind of an Adam-12 look.
3) All windows of cruisers would be untinted; if the state prevents regular citizens from having excessive tint then you're not special. The "intimidation" factor needs to be flushed out.
4) Long gun (AR) allowed in trunk of cruiser, otherwise it's sidearm and shotgun only for public view.
5) I would personally review any complaints of untoward behavior. Unnecessary dog shootings would be a pet peeve (yeah, I'm serious).
6) All officers would be very aware of the fact that courtesy is paramount and that yes, you do indeed work for these folks, criminals notwithstanding.
7) Officers appearing to be or reported as being a little too "gung-ho" would have their heels locked in my office the first time, suspended the next.
8) Any tac-team would be on a short leash. You're not in Fallujah or Ramadi. Warrants served by such would be triple-checked for accuracy and scrutinized for proper action.
9) If I heard the word "civilian" used in regards to the public you'd be shit-canned on the spot. It's a mindset focus, not an exercise in semantics. Eliminate the "us versus them" mentality.
An environment and/or culture change would need to be cultivated and would not happen overnight. The arrogance often associated with cops would have to be bred out, or at least made to be non-politically correct in my department. The simplest way to put it would be this: while all the criminals are citizens, all citizens are not criminals and therefore suspicion (not a healthy suspicion, the automatic type) should be applied conservatively.
Perhaps, like the DoD is often headed by someone who wasn't a military man, PD's might want to consider putting non-LEO citizens in charge. Someone rising from within the ranks with an attitude and salty chip on their shoulders would no doubt reflect that and condone it on the part of his officers.
I'd vote for you for Sheriff any day of the week.
This is exactly what I propose and a lot or "otherwise sane" individuals go into the tired "you're anti-..." routine.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I'd vote for you for Sheriff any day of the week.
This is exactly what I propose and a lot or "otherwise sane" individuals go into the tired "you're anti-..." routine.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
#7 and #9 I could negotiate on as there is subjectivity involved. In either case it would be different than now though. Oh, in case there is question: "gung ho" = asshole. While that may be subjective itself I think most of us know exactly what that entails.
Oh, an AR to me is a current-day weapon. I have no problem with it being employed but it doesn't need to be brought out immediately like a show of force, hence the suggestion that it be in the trunk. The intimidation factor overall needs to be quashed, unless>>>>>>a situation like we've seen this past weekend in Chicago you meet escalating force with escalating force (skin color is irrelevant). I can't fault the cops there of anything I've read so far.
I would not negotiate either. To whom much is given much is expected. I'd like to have them taught the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the State's laws. That way if they violate them they are dismissed.
Rough? Yep. Tough? Yep.
But I want the best.
Had this conversation today with a Noblesville, IN SWAT officer and he was very much concerned about how things are going. When asked how would he address me if I refused ID he stated that he'd call me "Mr. Smith" you have the constitutional right to refuse; could I check to see if the pistol is stolen. To which I stated I decline because you have not provided probable cause. Am I being detained and if so please articulate the probable cause.
He smiled and said that he'd shake my hand, congratulate me for knowing the law and send me on my way.
We desperately need officers who know and respect the goddamned law.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
QuietShootr
07-07-14, 20:52
I would not negotiate either. To whom much is given much is expected. I'd like to have them taught the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the State's laws. That way if they violate them they are dismissed.
Rough? Yep. Tough? Yep.
But I want the best.
Had this conversation today with a Noblesville, IN SWAT officer and he was very much concerned about how things are going. When asked how would he address me if I refused ID he stated that he'd call me "Mr. Smith" you have the constitutional right to refuse; could I check to see if the pistol is stolen. To which I stated I decline because you have not provided probable cause. Am I being detained and if so please articulate the probable cause.
He smiled and said that he'd shake my hand, congratulate me for knowing the law and send me on my way.
We desperately need officers who know and respect the goddamned law.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
What this guy said. verbatim.
#7 and #9 I could negotiate on as there is subjectivity involved. In either case it would be different than now though. Oh, in case there is question: "gung ho" = asshole. While that may be subjective itself I think most of us know exactly what that entails.
Oh, an AR to me is a current-day weapon. I have no problem with it being employed but it doesn't need to be brought out immediately like a show of force, hence the suggestion that it be in the trunk. The intimidation factor overall needs to be quashed, unless>>>>>>a situation like we've seen this past weekend in Chicago you meet escalating force with escalating force (skin color is irrelevant). I can't fault the cops there of anything I've read so far.
Still doesn't change the fact that your #3-#9 are ****ing retarded. I could break them down one by one, but that wouldn't do anything, since apparently you have no ****ing clue as to what you are talking about....and probably don't care to know a ****ing clue. You simply want to bitch about your pet peeves and tow the "tough guy" line.
If you implemented the shit storm concoction of a policy, you'd be sued out your ass and you yourself shit canned immediately....
You know **** it.....lets do this for shits and giggles....
"3) All windows of cruisers would be untinted; if the state prevents regular citizens from having excessive tint then you're not special. The "intimidation" factor needs to be flushed out."
Really? I've never seen a marked police vehicle with windows tinted to the point you cant see the driver or occupants, furthermore it would be a safety issue at night anyway (which is why there are laws against "excessive tint"). So that one's bullshit-stupid. Oh ya lets not forget that you want the poor SOB's to wear the hottest most uncomfortable uniform you can find....and you want them to fry in the sun...smart move.
4) Long gun (AR) allowed in trunk of cruiser, otherwise it's sidearm and shotgun only for public view.
Holy shitballs, did Hilary and Eric Holder make this ****ed up retard list????? Long gun in the trunk? Why in the **** would you want a rifle in the trunk? If you're going to make in inaccessible, just take it way all together....so as not to "scare" or "intimidate" anyone. Seriously one of the dumbest ****ing things I've read on an M4CARBINE site for **** sakes...Scare people????? If they are scared by a rifle, they'd be scared by a shotgun, or a poptart gun.
5) I would personally review any complaints of untoward behavior. Unnecessary dog shootings would be a pet peeve (yeah, I'm serious).
I would believe that most Chiefs and Sheriffs do review complaints, if the are founded. But first they have to be dealt with by Sgt's and LT's....you know...supervisors that get paid to....supervise. So again, pointless since there is nothing ground breaking about it...
6) All officers would be very aware of the fact that courtesy is paramount and that yes, you do indeed work for these folks, criminals notwithstanding.
Again, another "duh" statement, that's already known. But i'll let you in on a secret....respect is reciprocal . If you talk down to me and treat me like a piece of shit before I even open my mouth...guess whats coming your way. You have to give respect to get it, and that works both ways...I couldn't give two shits if you do pay taxes...so do I. I honestly can not count how many people scream, yell, cuss, degrade, etc, at me before I even open my mouth. I used to just try and play mr. nice guy "yes sir, yes ma'am". No, pieces of shit don't respond to that. They respond to "hey **** face, shut your suck hole".....that's honesty.
7) Officers appearing to be or reported as being a little too "gung-ho" would have their heels locked in my office the first time, suspended the next.
WTF does that even mean?????? You don't want people to be "gung-ho" about their job? You don't want them to be enthusiastic about going to work everyday?????
8) Any tac-team would be on a short leash. You're not in Fallujah or Ramadi. Warrants served by such would be triple-checked for accuracy and scrutinized for proper action.
ya you're not in Fallujah or Ramadi, you cant rape kids in front of their parents or waterboard people...duh only the real patriots do that shit. I'm also fairly certain that warrants are scrutinized for accuracy, but who knows or cares...this aint Fallujah. **** the tac teams, cant stand them anyway. I don't operate....or own a shemagh like all the militia seals (on this and other firearm sites)
9) If I heard the word "civilian" used in regards to the public you'd be shit-canned on the spot. It's a mindset focus, not an exercise in semantics. Eliminate the "us versus them" mentality.
Eliminate the us vs. them? How in the **** could that happen when half of you militia sovereign kooks think we're at war with you??????? People take summons, citations, etc, personally. Well its not personal, you're dumb enough to break the law and then get pissed when you're caught......deal with it. Us vs. them lol lol...I love it.
Have you ever been on a ride along? Have you ever dealt with Police....ever? Were you beaten down during the Watts riots? Do you still have a rash from the last speeding ticket?
Your list is the equivalence of a blind deaf person rewriting the playbook for the New England Patriots........
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.