Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time to disarm our cops?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Time to disarm our cops? Seems to me the common cop should not be armed. If responding to a situation where there is a need for weapons they should call in the US Armed forces or a small highly trained armed response force who would not be emotionally tied to the area or situations, who would not be a part of day to day patrols and policing.

It is painfully obvious that law enforcement cannot handle equipping their forces with guns as we have way to many incidents of misuse resulting in innocent or unneeded deaths of people and even pets.

Law enforcement should just back off when situations get hot and not just rush in with guns blazing.




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think cops should be allowed to carry weapons. Bad guys will get weapons, and if service men cannot carry weapons the bad guys will win.

Unfortunately the bad guys are sometimes dressed up in cop uniforms, mascaraing around as the good guys.

My honest opinion - offer more money to cops to make it a very lucrative career. If you do this there will be much more competition to get those jobs, and the freaks who should not be cops will be weeded out quickly by those who are much more qualified.
edit on 12-8-2014 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be easier to mandate that all cops take Prozac or something like that?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
I think cops should be allowed to carry weapons. Bad guys will get weapons, and if service men cannot carry weapons the bad guys will win.

Unfortunately the bad guys are sometimes dressed up in cop uniforms, mascaraing around as the good guys.

My honest opinion - offer more money to cops to make it a very lucrative career. If you do this there will be much more competition to get those jobs, and the freaks who should not be cops will be weeded out quickly by those who are much more qualified.


Not a bad idea. I do think though that most cops should not be armed with lethal force. Have some cops armed to respond with lethal force who are not part of the day to day beat so they are no emotionally invested in the situations. For instance a cop patrolling a mall maybe should not be armed but have armed response available if needed.

If there is a very situation where massive armed response is needed then they go and get armed for that specific situation only.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Time to disarm our cops? Seems to me the common cop should not be armed. If responding to a situation where there is a need for weapons they should call in the US Armed forces or a small highly trained armed response force who would not be emotionally tied to the area or situations, who would not be a part of day to day patrols and policing.

It is painfully obvious that law enforcement cannot handle equipping their forces with guns as we have way to many incidents of misuse resulting in innocent or unneeded deaths of people and even pets.

Law enforcement should just back off when situations get hot and not just rush in with guns blazing.


Defund, seize records, prosecute RICO.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
They should be allowed to carrying weapons, But it should Much Much tougher to get a job as a police officer. Vets that do 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan is not a reason to automatically get a job over someone more experienced for dealing with domestic problems. Not trying to bash any vets but most police were at one time a soldier, and they still carry that mentallity around on the streets, thats the problem when I look at it. These code enforcers should be elected by a general make up of the demographic in that region



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

Time to disarm our cops?


Absolutely not.

Cops need to be picked for other characteristics than they currently are, though. Cops should be above average intelligence, and be able to show compassion through action, while still being assertive (note, not aggressive, but assertive).

Cops should realize themselves that they are not separate from the community either, but a part of it. I know there is an "us vs them" mentality in some, or most, police forces, and thats extremely destructive to a community.

Cops need to change and be many things, but unarmed is not one of them. I think the general idea is ridiculous in the current societal environment.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I don't think offering more money will help. Politicians are offered more than most of us and yet they are some of the worst people in the country!

I think officers should carry weapons. If you don't think so, take a trip down to your local ghetto or slum and see how safe you feel. Now go confront some of the residents that are doing something wrong and then ask yourself that question again.

I was just watching Gangland on the History Channel this weekend. No way I'm going to those places to deal with any of that.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This is a very good Idea..maybe not full disarm but a requirement that you are not allowed to touch a firearm until you have been employed in 1 single department for over 4-5 years. This will get rid of the roid head ex-highschool footballers thinking they are over seerers.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Time to disarm our cops? Seems to me the common cop should not be armed. If responding to a situation where there is a need for weapons they should call in the US Armed forces or a small highly trained armed response force who would not be emotionally tied to the area or situations, who would not be a part of day to day patrols and policing.

So you are arguing to disarm the police and call the Army or SWAT team in when there is a violent situation? First, most police shootings occur in seconds. The whole prolonged, running gun battle is sensationalized by Hollywood and very rarely occurs in the real world.

Most police shootings occur when a person suddenly displays a hidden weapon during a routine stop and attempts to use it on an officer.

First, we have laws that prevent the Army from being used on citizens of the US.

Second, SWAT teams need time to respond.

So how is this going to help the unarmed patrol officer who is suddenly presented with someone using a weapon against them?

The only reason cops in certain countries can go unarmed is because guns are illegal in those countries. Also, violent crime in those countries is less per capita. In the US, guns are everywhere and there is no shortage of violent criminals who use them. Because guns are everywhere and there are so many violent criminals to use them, the police must be equipped to fight back.


It is painfully obvious that law enforcement cannot handle equipping their forces with guns as we have way to many incidents of misuse resulting in innocent or unneeded deaths of people and even pets.

Sure, you can point to the few instances where an a innocent person was killed due to a misunderstanding or confusion on the part of the police but for every instance this has occurred, there are 10s if not 100s of instances where an officer justifiably shot someone. I think you are grossly misinformed about the subject and you are buying into the hype.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Those patrolling traffic should be re-branded as 'Traffic Wardens' given the same powers as a Meter Maid. They would not be stopping people for 'other' reasons beyond traffic violations. There's no stopping to search vehicles. There's no 'creating' a false reason for stopping people (like the fictitious broken tail light). They should not be armed. Only in the case of serious violations should they have arrest powers and should bring in backup.

Normal cops would be limited in deadly force application, have specific Rules of Engagement, similar to what's allowed in a foreign country. What's the harm in allowing a BG who is stealing something to get away versus shooting up the store and hitting unarmed, innocent civilians? They're much too entitled. Those that violate RoE would be tried and sentenced.

Use the greater force of numbers, radios, less-lethal methods and patience and backup as needed. SWAT only gets called in when there is a very serious reason.

Eliminate 99% of no-knock warrants. Wait and catch the BG when they go out for smokes. This would eliminate the invasion of 'Sorry, Wrong Address, We didn't mean to shoot you and your dog' scenarios.

Stop the edict of 'The Only Good Citizen is a Dead Citizen'.

2 cents.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

So you want to disarm cops subjecting them to the violence that comes their way with their day to day happenings all without protection, THEN you advocate violating posse comitatus? You're on a roll here buddy.

I have a question for you though. Why do you think that armed personnel who don't hold personal ties to a location would be better than someone who does have ties to a community? The way I see it, someone without the ties would be more likely to screw things up for the community since they don't have to be there to see the aftermath.
edit on 12-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
It's easy to police from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. Put on a blue shirt and go out and do it. I guarantee your perspective will change 180°.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
One thing is for sure, when a Police Officer injures or kills a citizen in the course of their duties, it should trigger an automatic investigation - and that investigation should not be conducted by the same Police Force that the Officer works for.

City or County Police Forces should be investigated by State Troopers, State Troopers should be investigated by a Federal Agency, etc.

The "arrest culture", coupled with the "code of silence" work hand in hand to create far too many instances of police people colouring way outside of the lines...with no repercussions.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

We don't need to take their guns, we need to take their lead bullets and give them rubber ones, then lace their donuts with thc.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

The day you or I can be hunkered down because of a mass shooter in the area or if kidnapped at gun point, is the day you or I will regret unarmed police. You will always have bad apples in any profession, including the police. For the most part, if you keep your nose clean, don't carry a chip on your shoulder, and are a law abiding citizen, you shouldn't have anything to fear. It's when people become confrontational is when bad cops lose their cool and things get out of hand.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MentorsRiddle

This isn't a comic book.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Very good idea!



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
It's when people become confrontational is when bad cops lose their cool and things get out of hand.


Nowadays just opening your mouth at all is considered confrontational.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale


One thing is for sure, when a Police Officer injures or kills a citizen in the course of their duties, it should trigger an automatic investigation - and that investigation should not be conducted by the same Police Force that the Officer works for.

The investigation is already automatic. When have you ever heard of a cop shooting someone and the department saying "we have decided not to investigate?"

I agree that an outside agency should be involved in the investigation to give the appearance of impartiality. To be honest, those agencies that investigate their own are ALWAYS monitored by the State's Attorney's Office to ensure it is done properly.






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join