Time to disarm our cops?

a reply to: TorqueyThePig
Where do you find a higher suicide rate?

Among cops.... or the general public?

a reply to: butcherguy

Answer the question yes or no.

Should all cops be medicated due to the actions of others?

a reply to: butcherguy

I am sure suicide and divorce rates are higher amonst law enforcement officers. The job is beyond stressful.

However that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: Xeven 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.

I fear military personnel are trained for a much higher threat level than civilian police, I do not think this would actually de-escalate things (not offence to servicemen - Love you all).

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: butcherguy

I am sure suicide and divorce rates are higher amonst law enforcement officers. The job is beyond stressful.

However that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So is medicating cops.
I disagree with cops being disarmed.... that is the topic.

Off topic..... So you agree that we should take a group of people that have a tendency for suicide, violence and taking steroids and give them guns and put them above the law? The enforcers.... a group that has to take an intelligence test beforehand, so they can weed out the smart ones!

a reply to: butcherguy

I don't believe that a majority of the ones that become suicidal and/or violent entered the profession suicidal and/or violent.

I believe that the career itself is what changes a majority of bad officers. You can only be untruthfully called corrupt, violent, stupid, lazy, and basically treated like the scum of the earth for so long. That coupled with being shut out by a lot of society causes some to eventually snap and do something stupid or illegal (Don't take that as me validating any bad that has occurred at the hands of a cop).

However the career does not change every officer for the bad and the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. That is not fair.

I do belive that coping and emotional survival should be a greater focus in police academies and at departments.

I know a lot of blanket cop haters like to use the case where the small department refused to higher the guy with the high IQ as a means to strengthen their arguement that police officers are dumb.

However if you read more into it the average police officers IQ is slightly above normal. I am sure some are below and some are higher. It even states so in the article speaking of not hiring the guy.

abcnews.go.com...

I think we all know of people in certain positions that we question how they got there.

Yes I agree that if it is discovered that a cop is suicidal or violent they should be let go and punished if a crime was committed.

a reply to: Xeven

Interesting topic. I think the question we need to ask is, is the primary purpose of the police service sidearm defense of the public or officer self defense? Conflicting philosophies or perhaps misconceptions further compound the issue. We grow up in America assuming the police are first and foremost in existence to protect us and keep our neighborhoods safe from the bad guys. And why not subscribe to said belief? Movies and television shows romanticize the lives of police officers and insist that we identify with them and appreciate--even admire--their selfless dedication to defending the innocent.

However, no segment of real life is ever as black and white as the plot of a crime drama. In my own experience, both as a veteran and close friend of currently active law enforcement officers, I have observed that at least with some combat vets who go law enforcement, they transfer the meaning of "enemy" from the battlefield to civilian criminals and suspects and at least psychologically, approach them the same way. So there's that--a frightening trend, perhaps limited to my own observations and not a a nationwide occurrence.

Then there's the mentality of threat response, which most any individual who's ever carried a weapon and live rounds with a mandate to use them, will tell you that that weapon is the focus of most any self defense reaction. Whatever threat arises, the loaded weapon you carry, that's a sure bet most every time for putting down a bad guy. So why rely on pepper spray or a taser, or whatever other non-lethal you're packing when right there at your fingertips is guaranteed life preserving power in the form of a firearm?

At length I think the central problem with lethally armed police is the seemingly growing culture among them of self defense above all else. Their focus on that lethal option is a real issue; one that seems to have resulted in higher rates of civilian casualties.

As to disarming the police? Regardless of my opinion, in America, that's highly unlikely. However, If nothing else I'd like to see better safety mechanisms and heavier trigger pulls on service sidearms--features which might give the officer a few more vital seconds to think before shooting.

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.

NO, quite often cops save innocent lives by being able to stop a bad guy with deadly force. True abuse of power by the LEO is actually much rarer than the MSM would have you believe.

However, there are incidents of bad cops and criminal cops and abusive cops.

What we have here is not a weapons problem, but an accountability problem. You can't blame a tool for a defect in the people.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I know a lot of blanket cop haters like to use the case where the small department refused to higher the guy with the high IQ as a means to strengthen their arguement that police officers are dumb.

I am not a blanket cop hater.
I have met several in 52 years that I would trust.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: butcherguy

Nice deflection.

You are interacting with one on a forum as we speak.

So I should be medicated because what others have done?

I think you should have to keep your firearm in the car while on duty and have to ask permission to remove it and get approval from a Judge or other official to bring it into situations just like when our armed forces have to ask for permission to fire on targets. Now I would leave it up to the experts to determine which situations warrant carry of lethal force not me. They should develop better non lethal force for you to carry in between those situations.

It is not personal. You may be the most reliable law enforcement officer on the planet but somewhere exists the next guy who is going to kill some ones dog or raid the wrong house and kill the wrong people.

There needs to be something extra in between a cop and the use of lethal force. If officers have to actively ask for permission to use lethal force perhaps it will help them make better decisions when doing so.

It is funny if you think about it. A Navy seal has to get permission from President to Kill Osama Bin Laden but any cop can decide to take any American life on his own.

a reply to: AphoticJoe

Interesting perspective.

I will say that although I have never witnessed any violations of rights by a fellow officer I have seen some "I am better then you attitudes."

In my personal experience those with the "I am better then you" attitudes are the ones who served in the Army or the Marines ( THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERY ONE HAS THE ATTITUDE). I don't see that attitude with our Navy or Air Force vets.

The thing is the ones with the "I am better then you" attitude treat law enforcement officers like myself with no military experience like I am beneath them. If they will treat me that way, I am sure they have no problem treating a citizen the same.

In the past I have given my four reasons as to why I feel we may be seeing an increase in police violence, corruption and mistakes made in the line of duty. I usually am bashed when I list them but I will paraphrase them here anyways;

1. Lack of pay is turning away quality candidates and causing good candidates that are already employed to leave to pursue other avenues.

2. The way a lot of people treat and view law enforcement negatively is causing those with good moral compasses to leave the profession. Just like me. I never thought I would be unjustly viewed as a monster. It sure as hell is not worth the money (See #1)

3. Due to the ethicaly sound and experienced officers leaving the profession you are left with young officers with no prior experience to train the even newer officers. How can someone with 1 year experience be a field training officer? This lack of experienced officers is creating a new breed of officers with even less experience. That causes a substantial increase in the mistakes being made on duty. News flash it is happening all over.

4. Due to quality candidates realizing they can make more money and be treated better in other careers police departments are having to lower their hiring standards. It is happening all over trust me. My friend who is in the Air Force states it is similar to what is occuring in the military.

I truly feel that it is only going to get worse. That is why I am actively seeking alternative employment.

a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't mean that you were.

Just stating that is a common case that blanket cop haters keep in their toolbox.

originally posted by: feldercarb
No I don't agree with taking away the guns. Better method would be to have all police have cameras so that every situation can be reviewed with visual and sound. This should be doable in this day and age. There was an article on MSN about requiring the cameras after altercation with police.

I like the camera idea. I see no reason to distrust someone to operate a firearm just because they are in a position of authority. Just like I don't agree with taking guns away from people for arbitrary reasons (ex: mental illness) if they haven't done anything wrong with them. But I DO distrust them and know that given the opportunity, many will use them in an abuse of power situation. So cameras keeps them honest.

a reply to: Krazysh0t A Camera equipped on the fire arms would do great in getting to the truth when these things happen. Yet another great way to keep the "good guys" Honest.

While I started the thread with disarm cops I have seen a lot of good alternatives in here.

a reply to: Xeven

Again your view and I respect your right to have it.

That being said would I be wrong to assume you do not have any experience in firearms, tactics, shootings?

I just don't understand how one could think it was a good idea to keep a firearm in the trunk and have to ask permission from a judge to use it. How would that work in this scenario?

I am 1 minute away from an armed robbery at Wal-Mart. Before I respond I have to call a judge and ask permission from a judge. So I pull out my phone and make the call. Well there is another few minutes for the robber to hurt someone or get away. Crap the judge didn't answer. What now?

OR

I walk in to 7-11 to use the restroom and a man just shot one of the store clerks. Oh I guess I better call the judge and ask permisson to get my firearm out of the trunk.

So do you also believe a citizen excercising their second ammendment right should have to call to get permisson to use their firearm?

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Xeven

Again your view and I respect your right to have it.

That being said would I be wrong to assume you do not have any experience in firearms, tactics, shootings?

I just don't understand how one could think it was good idead to keep a firearm in the trunk and have ask permission from a judge. How would that work in this scenario?

I am 1 minute away from an armed robbery at Wal-Mart. Before I respond I have to call a judge and ask permission from a judge. So I pull out my phone and make the call. Well there is another few minutes for the robber to hurt someone or get away. Crap the judge didn't answer. What now?

I have intermediate experience with firearms and none really with tactics and shootings. I would make armed robbery one of those situations where you would not need to make a call.

I agree with your ideas on the need to get higher qualified people in law enforcement. Also agree pay for law enforcement personnel is dismal in most cases.

Just remember in the robbery case I walked into the 7-11 unarmed. The robber has identified me. I don't need to call the judge but I do need to retrieve my weapon from the trunk.

Can you see how that would end badly?

Remember you cannot always measure the worth of the police by crime statistics. It does not take into account the crimes deterred by our mere presence.

One of the reasons criminals are deterred by our presence is because they know we have immediate access to our weapons and are generally better trained in tactics then they are.

If you deny use the right to have immediate access to our firearms criminals will no longer be deterred.

Remember America is not Europe. What may work there does not mean it will work here. The opposite is of course true.

a reply to: Xeven

Do you carry your weapon off of your property? Work, shopping, etc.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

1. Lack of pay is turning away quality candidates and causing good candidates that are already employed to leave to pursue other avenues.

2. The way a lot of people treat and view law enforcement negatively is causing those with good moral compasses to leave the profession. Just like me. I never thought I would be unjustly viewed as a monster. It sure as hell is not worth the money (See #1)

3. Due to the ethicaly sound and experienced officers leaving the profession you are left with young officers with no prior experience to train the even newer officers. How can someone with 1 year experience be a field training officer? This lack of experienced officers is creating a new breed of officers with even less experience. That causes a substantial increase in the mistakes being made on duty. News flash it is happening all over.

4. Due to quality candidates realizing they can make more money and be treated better in other careers police departments are having to lower their hiring standards. It is happening all over trust me. My friend who is in the Air Force states it is similar to what is occuring in the military.

I think you make some excellent points which provide much needed insight from an insider's perspective into serious current issues with American law enforcement. The more "human" law enforcement personnel in general appear to the population at large, the less instant hatred will be spread, hopefully.