It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should We DISARM All The Cops?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not having an armed police force in a nation full of legally-armed citizens is a super bad idea.


Actually, that's how it's supposed to be.

Arm the citizens, not the cops.

You'll always need a special armed group of cops, like swat, to call in when there are special situations.

But, your average daily cop on the beat should just carry a night stick.

Cops should be encouraged to view the citizens as people they are there to "help," not "to control" nor "abuse."

A cop should be like a fireman, rushing in to rescue the residents and citizens, and helping them out.

He should be thinking on his feet, how to save "all lives."

If he arrives on the scene and finds armed thugs shooting, then he calls in swat.

But, we don't want "swat" patrolling the streets and stopping people for minor violations.




posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Abysha




Not having an armed police force in a nation full of legally-armed citizens is a super bad idea.

Care to explain why you worded that statement in such a way ?
Please . I know the answer , but I want other folks to know
Sometimes some folk's posts are better than watching reruns of the 3 Stooges


What part is confusing? We have the constitutional right to carry firearms. Because of that legal right, the police should be armed, as well.

Did you want me to explain the "super bad" part? Super as in really and bad as in not good. So if I were to Trump it up, I guess I could say "really not good".



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not having an armed police force in a nation full of legally-armed citizens is a super bad idea.


Actually, that's how it's supposed to be.

Arm the citizens, not the cops.

You'll always need a special armed group of cops, like swat, to call in when there are special situations.

But, your average daily cop on the beat should just carry a night stick.

Cops should be encouraged to view the citizens as people they are there to "help," not "to control" nor "abuse."

A cop should be like a fireman, rushing in to rescue the residents and citizens, and helping them out.

He should be thinking on his feet, how to save "all lives."

If he arrives on the scene and finds armed thugs shooting, then he calls in swat.

But, we don't want "swat" patrolling the streets and stopping people for minor violations.




That only works in nations with strict gun control. It works in some Euro nations because it's unlikely they'll encounter random people with hand cannons in their glove boxes. If I lived in one those nations, I'd be grateful that the beat cops were unarmed.

But I live in the United States and it's unfair to ask cops to bring nightsticks to what they know will, in all probability, be a gun fight at some point.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Cops neeed to be armed. I just had a fine aa fellow proceed to tell me he was going to "put a burner in my ng_ a@"
For honking at him for sitting in the intersection, in Urbandale, Iowa.
I think he probably was surprised to see a guy looking like a tattooed irish cage fighter and got scared. But still, come on I'm white dude.

Wtf is wrong with people?

I think your threat statistics are wrong though, especially the shark one, and stats will be higher in gangland areas than rural America. They need to be seperate stats.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
No.

Next.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH


Actually, that's how it's supposed to be.


According to who?


Cops should be encouraged to view the citizens as people they are there to "help," not "to control" nor "abuse."


We are. The failure of some to act on it doesn't equate to that not being what the job is.


A cop should be like a fireman, rushing in to rescue the residents and citizens, and helping them out. He should be thinking on his feet, how to save "all lives."


We do.


If he arrives on the scene and finds armed thugs shooting, then he calls in swat.


Meanwhile, the guys with guns just keep popping rounds off and stacking bodies up for however long it takes this mystical SWAT unit you envision to get there. The first "armed response unit" I found information for from the UK (Manchester, specifically) takes about four minutes to arrive at a scene. Other articles talk about armed response units averaging nine minutes to arrive on scene. That's a pretty long time for unarmed cops to watch armed assailants kill people.


But, we don't want "swat" patrolling the streets and stopping people for minor violations.


They don't.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

We don't need to disarm cops. That would be tyrannical to them. They have a right to live as well, and honestly....we should be thankful someone is willing to take a bullet (potentially) for the greater good of society.

I know...that paragraph doesn't sound like me at all. But its the truth of how i feel....partially anyway.

If we want to decrease police shootings the answer is simple: reduce the potential enforcement interaction with the public. The path to this is relatively simple: repeal laws. All the illicit activities that lead to increased danger...quit making them illicit.

If police were enforcing laws that made people safe instead of taking away their freedom to make bad personal decisions, you'd likely see the poeple who make bad personal decisions become less antogonistic towards police.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Minor point that im sure will agree on, to an extend: providing "help" is the opposite of taking someone to jail for non-criminal offenses. Its not helpful at all when someone has to deal with 6 months probation and associated fees for possessing a gram of pot. Or when someone involved in a consensual, adult business dealing related to the sex trade not only gets arrested, but is humiliated by posting his picture in the paper...that isn't helping.

I would never visit such a lady myself...but it pisses me off when I see those men being humiliated. Especially when having some paperwork and a camera would make them artists and not criminals.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Ill add one more item, then step off the soap box:

Ghost graphics on cars do nothing to help traffic issues or speeders. All it does is provide a revenue stream for the city. If the city were interested in creating a safer driving environment, they would make themselves as visible as possible for any/all to see. Even people who aren't speeding slam on their brakes when they see a cop.

That speaks volumes about intention to me. Cops aren't there to help or provide a service. They are there to collect revenue from The People.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Sure..

Free free to disarm all the cops when you figure out a way to disarm all the criminals, all the roid addicts (as someone said above) , all the drug users, all the drunks, all the people out there with a gun that use it to commit a crime.

Since you can't ever do that then you can't ever disarm the cops.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We agree on pretty much all your points, Tex.

You'll not find me defending laws that dictate what two consenting adults can do to each other in their bedroom, among many other laws. Asset forfeiture is among those laws, at least in the manner that many states go about doing it. I have no problem taking assets from convicted criminals, but I have a pretty large problem with taking things from Average Joe and then telling him to prove "us" wrong.

I think Krazy touched on a good point when it comes to the War on Drugs. A more or less complete revamping and reorientation of how that's done (or not done) would go a long way.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
The Officer that I interacted with last night had ghost graphics on his SUV. I had to look twice to be sure it was a cop when he drove up.
You have a good point. Except for undercover work, there is no reason to hide who they are.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

There are some really good replies in here.

I think disarming US police would be the royal road to anarchy. New recruits would vanish and many serving LEOs would quit for their own safety and thinking of their families. There'd be a fast rise in actual crime that wouldn't completely show up because there'd be fewer LEOs to record the stats. It'd be a crazy scenario.

Having guns in vehicles presents several obvious problems. The lost seconds/minutes it takes to get into the vehicle and release the weapon from a locked glove box would give the criminal a great advantage. LEOs would be forced to compensate for this by defaulting to raised threat levels. By that I mean they'd feel obliged to communicate a perception of threat to justify entering a situation with their weapon on them.

Another issue would be no holsters. Incidents would be inflamed by the officers having weapons in hands instead of in holsters.

Broadly speaking, I think developed nations have the police forces their societies require and the USA needs police who carry weapons.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I likely wouldn't pull over for one, instead contacting the police to ask for a supervisor. Not because I can't figure it out....but because more than one person has been murdered by a fake cop, and im just a bit difficult to deal with.

It should be a law that police cruisers have to be clearly marked, but in Texas it is not.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Shamrock6

We don't need to disarm cops. That would be tyrannical to them. They have a right to live as well, and honestly....we should be thankful someone is willing to take a bullet (potentially) for the greater good of society.


It will save more cop lives, by disarming them.

When a cop carries a gun, he gets a false sense of security, and belief, in his ability to control the situation.

This leads him to take actions that eventually lead to someone being shot.

When he is disarmed, the cop is much more cautious, and if there's real danger, he can always call for back up from swat.

Also, when the public knows that the cop is disarmed, they are less likely to shoot at the cop, and more likely that bystanders will pitch in and help him to solve the community problem that required the cop visit in the first place.

But, when the cop is armed, many people stay away for fear of becoming accidental victims by mistaken perceptions of the cop who arrives on the scene knowing little of the events that called him out there.

Cops should view themselves as community workers, seeking help from the community, trying to understand the community they patrol, and thinking of themselves as just "consultants" being called in to help to work out social problems, not trying "to solve" all the problems themselves, but requesting and accepting suggestions from the locals, so everybody feels they are working on the same team, for the same goals. It's not supposed to be "us against them", which is what happens when you "empower" cops with "firearms", and they use those tools too readily, shooting unarmed people in the backs, etc., just because they are running away and not "complying" with "orders". Cops should seek "co-operation" rather than "control", and that will only happen if the cop is psychologically at a disadvantage by being disarmed.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'd have to find the links for *proof,* but I've seen UK police statements appreciating that motorists won't always pull over until they're somewhere public.

Fake cops goes all the way back to the Valentine's Day Massacre. There's enough history to justify reasonable caution.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Do you have anything that actually backs up what you're saying, or does it all just come from the land of making things up and then arguing as if they're facts?



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AMPTAH

Do you have anything that actually backs up what you're saying, or does it all just come from the land of making things up and then arguing as if they're facts?


It comes from long life experience, and experience managing people, using different styles of management, and of observing all the results cops get from their actions in the communities they serve.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

So...no.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
No need to disarm cops, just level the playing field.

Citizens should be able to carry any weapons cops carry.

If a cop keeps his hand on his gun when he pulls me over for a blown out tail light, I should be able to keep my hand on my gun while he writes the ticket.

If cops show up to a protest in body armor with assault rifles, everyone else should, too.

Citizens should have every right to be just as safe as cops.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join