Police officer killed in Pennsylvania, gunman at large

a reply to: JIMC5499


Ah man, that is horrible and I'm really sorry to hear that. He sounds like a great guy

I live in this area as well (about 45 minutes North of Pittsburgh), and it has definitely hit too close to home.

a reply to: Shamrock6


Shamrock, if I'm not mistaken wasn't the Baltimore officer killed with his duty weapon?

I wonder if the attacks are related?

It is terrible to see how brazen attackers are these days. Training stresses that someone attempting to take your gun is of course a deadly threat and justifies use of lethal force. You must assume any attacker who attempts to disarm you is going to kill you, and it is 100% a fight for your life at that point.

The second someone gets control of your weapon they will use it against you. This is why retention tools & training matter so much.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Shamrock6


Shamrock, if I'm not mistaken wasn't the Baltimore officer killed with his duty weapon?

I wonder if the attacks are related?

EXACTLY what came to mind 1st off!

It's RIGHT within the timeline too, and that guy who shot the baltimore det. was injured AND they had such heat involved after that event, that he would have to leave the state to avoid capture.

This would also lead to why the office in PA was shot, from such a stop.

I wouldn't doubt for a sec, that this event is being investigated HEAVILY in connection with the baltimore det. murder.

Baltimore detective murder

a reply to: ttobban

He was a cop for 11 years, so the notion that he suddenly "reflected" on it and realized that it's not okay to kick detainees in the face is horse poop. It would be a whole heck of a lot more impressive for him to have done something while he was still active rather than waiting until he was out to do it.

I'm well aware of the "Thin Blue Line" mentality, and I'm aware that there are dirty cops and racist cops. My point with my previous comment is that Wood was seemingly willing to engage in the same corrupt, racist acts when he was on the job and only started saying he had a problem with kicking suspects in the face once he was off the job.

One of the things that I agree, at least partially, with him about is the role of unions in law enforcement. I think LE unions have a role to play, because they prevent abuse of officers by administrations from happening. An example of that would be that cops can't go on strike because they've been required to work 30 days straight. It's against the law for law enforcement to strike. So the unions step in to keep things like that from happening, and if they do have to happen, to ensure that safeguards and compensation are in place. The problem with unions is that they often wind up rushing to defend any and all actions by every cop, ever, everywhere. So I don't agree that unions should be taken entirely out of police work, but I do think that they're roles need to drastically pulled back from what they've become.

a reply to: JBurns

Not that I'm aware of. Last I saw was the chief said it was possible, but they hadn't ruled anything out yet.

a reply to: Shamrock6

He admits to what he did. He said he was a marine that was trained to kill, and was hired by the police force to use his marine taught skills in his daily affairs of a new career post military service. He was paid to operate within a system of which he grew a distaste for as he seen what consequences of it were unfolding in his work area. They moved him to the rich neighborhoods, and kept the same standards of job performance. He says he was essentially forced to leave the patrol of the safe and secure neighborhood, to go find a criminal to arrest. He had to go back to the poor neighborhood to achieve results for his boss and fraternity.

I'd like to think that most people that are experiencing similar aspects of consequence at work that they would move to change that. Not that I compare it, but he didn't wait 20 years to call Weinstein on his B.S. He stepped up to the negative aspects of cult policing, and paid the price for it. Would you rather he waited 20 years and became a SJW after the fact? Sorry, but I don't ignore the stories of others when I have a distaste for something that was initially said... it's not my style.

Again, I ask if you are attached to law enforcement as a career of your choosing or if a close family member is if you aren't in law enforcement?

originally posted by: Beatnixx117
I weep emphatically......booohooo. that's me weeping. I almost was to lazy to write all those O's . See i care. Six O's and all. Takes effort for those leo's. Another O. That's how much I care. 9 O'S. INSERT SARCASM HERE.

These are the kind of scum BLM is made up of. This is why their "message" doesn't resonate.

a reply to: ttobban

He says he was essentially forced to leave the patrol of the safe and secure neighborhood, to go find a criminal to arrest.

Know what it's called when you go look for criminals to arrest? Proactive policing. Know what Wood proudly boasts of receiving an award for? Proactive policing.

He stepped up to the negative aspects of cult policing, and paid the price for it

How exactly has he paid the price of it? He's still getting a medical pension. That's my entire point: he didn't say anything when it was hard to say it. He only said something once it became easy to say it. Yay for saying something at all, but I'm not going to hero worship him.

Sorry, but I don't ignore the stories of others when I have a distaste for something that was initially said

It's fairly apparent you're missing my point, and as I've made it more than once I'm not really interested in trying to continue to make it. If I was going to "ignore the stories" of others, I probably wouldn't have paid attention to his views on police unions, much less agreed with him about it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am not asking you if you are attached to law enforcement for self serving purposes, but am beginning to think you're dancing around the question. It's an important to establish this prior to debate of policing, if the debaters are connected to law enforcement. I am not attached to law enforcement... it's pretty simple.

It's hard to rationally debate specifics when the chefs cooking the food are not known.

a reply to: ttobban

I'm beginning to think you didn't read the T&C when you signed up, otherwise you'd probably know that it's against the site policies to ask for personal information of any sort, for any reason. Given that, it's entirely up to me whether I care to answer the question.

Given your reason for asking, I don't really care to answer. If you can't have a discussion about an issue without knowing everybody's profession beforehand, I don't know what to tell you. My background, whatever it may be, doesn't change the veracity of the points I've made.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's about rational debate... I could really care less about who you are personally. I am fine with not getting an answer too... I only ask because you have a cop avatar, you are vehemently in full support and pride for law enforcement, and even have a link to your thread about the right to resist arrest.

Why am I asking? It's because it relates to the food people eat, and information is food. A family will cook for their food with the mindset of health and sustainability. A business/chef will cook with the primary focus of tasting good and gaining sales. A chef is more than willing to throw harmful ingredients into their dishes to gain support.

In the end, I just wish for people to learn who it is they're debating with. I've learned to not trust chefs with any knowledge about what food I eat. I've learned to not trust a a system of doctors that ask me to then return and ask them, 'is this drug right for me?' I've learned that the consumer of these business' deserve to have input that is worth more than the people of which do it for a living. It's like the mortician that sees dead body's day after day... they eventually become desensitized to it, and their credibility in debate becomes of lesser value.

It's really up to other debaters to read into what I'm explaining here... I really don't care to be right.

Legacy and tyranny of legacy is typically more of a hidden cancer in societies than any side of debate, but it's important to establish to gain any headway. So, debate with you is kind of pointless here then... I will leave you to your closet's skeletons. I apologize for breaking T&C law... go ahead and get the witch stake burning for me.

My opinons folks, don't allow for doctors to set your opiate policies. Don't allow your public school administrators set your debate views of education. Don't allow bankers to advise you where your money is best spent. Don't take a politicians word on what other political systems may not work, and don't trust law enforcement officials to have the best interest of the consumer/citizens' at heart when they debate their views of policing.

a reply to: ttobban

It's about rational debate...

No, it's really not. What I do for a living doesn't add to or subtract from the points I've made.

you are vehemently in full support and pride for law enforcement,

You're spot on man, you really nailed it. That part where I said Baltimore PD is, and has been, widely recognized as both corrupt and racist is definitely very "fully supportive." That part where I said I have a problem with police unions? Yep, "fully supportive" too. That comment I had about how I know there's racist cops and corrupt cops? Almost the definition of "fully supportive."

We can go ahead and end our interaction here. I'm not in the habit of engaging with people who's idea of "rational debate" is to just make things up about the person they're interacting with, nor am I really interested in "rationally debating" things with somebody who needs to know my profession so they can use that to try and dismiss my points, without ever actually addressing my points.

The last post... is this like when someone quits a job and the boss turns right back around and fires them???

Geez... no wonder police shoot so many people that are unarmed. They're scared before they even get out of the car when approaching poor citizens.

originally posted by: ttobban
Geez... no wonder police shoot so many people that are unarmed. They're scared before they even get out of the car when approaching poor citizens.

Have you ever actually looked at the real number of police shootings?

I am not a cop worshiper if they break the law they should be punished to the fullest extent but this hysteria the press is pushing does not have facts to back it up.

Washington Post

874 fatal shootings in a country of 330 million people, around a million uniformed officers so multiple millions of interactions a day and only 874 fatal shootings that is fricking amazing.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Over 500 of that 874 which were armed with a firearm when shot by LE.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I figured the simplest numbers might actually get through... maybe... possibly... well I can hope cant I.

Its amazing how so many people seem unable to grasp the big picture, thats not to say some police forces are not in need of a good inspection from an external inspection team.

But the vast majority of cops are doing fantastic work in an impossible situation where the press, the law, and the politicians are against them.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I agree... that's a miraculous aspect that the U.S. has so many medicated citizens, yet have so few of such cases of shooting deaths. Sorry, but that statement was more used as an analogy... to point out how there's a disconnect between the way a law enforcer sees these things, in comparison to how the enforced upon sees these things. I agree that that number is puny in comparison to what it should be, but I also feel police killing people because they were scared, where the victims shows to not be capable of killing a a scared approaching officer, should be held fully accountable, without debate. If a police officer chose a career with elevated risks, then they need to be able to make more sound judgement when choosing to fire a gun. Citizens, especially citizens that are being scrutinized by a crime fishing police force don't need to have these horrible gun conflicts be learned on the job like we see happening. So, in the case of where a person is unarmed and essentially not capable of killing an officer ends up dead at the trigger finger of a police member on the clock... I feel 1 is too many.

I agree with you, fully in fact. I merely wish to pass the opinion onto law enforcement officials, that the common citizen doesn't endorse the methods of police departments. Because law enforcement's client base is the very citizens that allow for them to even roam the streets for crimes in the first place, it's increasingly important to know whether a law enforcement official is acting as a kind citizen, or if it's a fraternity to be protected that gains influence. With these aspects at play, people need to not allow the fraternity to gain influence.

Why is it that police are great at showing up after the crimes to put order back together the best they can, yet fail to prevent crimes before they happen? I feel it's because they're completely disconnected from their customer base. Just like the former cop that's being bashed stated... 1 million dollars spent to combat the war on drugs by way of enforcement reduce drug influx by 10Kg. That same 1 million dollars spent on education yields a reduction of 100 Kg of drug influx. How are we supposed to take these stats, and at the same time, offer up former fraternity members any chance to have influence over the future paths chosen.

originally posted by: ttobban
a reply to: Irishhaf

Why is it that police are great at showing up after the crimes to put order back together the best they can, yet fail to prevent crimes before they happen?

Because there is no such thing as a pre-crime unit, the closest we have gotten to date is profiling but they are not legally allowed to do that anymore. (If it changed sorry missed it)

Peace officers of any stripe in all of history have never been intended to stop crime its intended to clean it up and give the illusion of security to assist with keeping civilization stable.

a reply to: Irishhaf

What about that new show with Jeremy Pivens... 'Wisdom of The Crowd?' it uses technology and a joined community to police and use the internet to average out the most likely suspect. It sets a stage of which police just need to respond to what the technology found. I would never claim to know the end all be all answer, but I do not support the ways that have been taken to get us to this point... that's for sure.

There's just too many hints along the way that indicate that police see crimes occur in poor sectors of society at higher rates. The higher statistics of crime create a level of alertness of which is being pushed further and further into the spectrums of divide... divide of which is cancerous. How many officers out of 100, in a traffic stop after going through the paces, take a moment and thank the citizen of which they just investigated for being in an area of 'higher chance of crime?' Nope, instead they are left to leave as if a failed hunt just took place prior.

Whether it's a cop shooting a citizen or a citizen shooting a cop, to me its a clear and present indication that neither side knows what's best for the other. If the fraternity of policing isn't broken down, the gangs won't get broken down... plain and simple.