Excessesive Force

a reply to: andy06shake

You obviously don't know the laws most places have that protect people on their own property. If police do not announce themselves where I am from they are not protected... I'm pretty sure a quick Google search will provide examples if you care to look.

a reply to: RickyD

I know if you shoot at Police they are never going to stop until they shoot or stop you, law or otherwise.

And that's about as obvious as it gets.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well if,thats all you "know" you don't know much...

a reply to: RickyD

And yet common sense prevails.

I know not to shoot at Police or anyone else for that matter.

Why don't you test the premise of the argument, get back to us and let us know how shooting at Police, whilst you think you are in the right or wrong, works out for you?

Mind and wear some kevlar all the same, good luck, my understanding is they don't take many prisoners whilst dodging hot lead.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nobody is arguing for shooting at police.

Criminals have guns. The police need to be equipped to do their job. Period. And this is from someone who absolutely hates most police.

ETA: Restraint training needs to be a thing. Like I said, I'd pay the extra taxes for better trained police to make our cities/towns safer for everyone.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Seem to me they are if they perceive themselves to be in the right.

As to police requiring guns, i don't disagree considering civilians carry such.

You shoot at Police they will shot you and ask questions later.

Quite simple really.

Should probably add, i don't particularly like Police nether, considering a good one in this day of age seems to be rather few and far between, but i do understand how dangerous they can be, especially when challenged.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: 2Faced

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
How does having guns or not affect police use of excessive force? Example: Rodney King

Street cops should be under constant and real-time scrutiny. If you want to prevent them from being arrogant trigger-happy, puppy killing bastards with low regard for the public, they should feel eyes in their backs 24/7. Why? Because as soon as a newbie cop leaves the academy and hits the locker-room of his/her new precinct, they’ll be submitted to peer pressure from the veterans full of piss and vinegar.

You know this as a fact how? You sound petulant; did you fail academy entrance exams? Street cops bad; other?! desk jockey cops good.

Never mind how I know, not important. All you need to know is that I’m not pulling it out of my ass. However, speaking of “petulant”, your typical response is exactly what I expected from either a cop, or someone related to law enforcement in one way or another, because you sound exactly like a stereotypical arrogant cop who doesn’t take well to criticism. You may assume I’m the one who’s irritated all you like, or say I’m rude, you can even call me a whining bitch, but that doesn’t change the fact that all to often cops use excessive force. At least often enough to produce many hours of undeniable (youtube) footage.

To answer your other questions: a desk cop can’t kill a puppy while sitting behind his keyboard. The most harm he can do is inflict a nasty paper-cut. And nope, I would never want to be a cop, because I love most people and animals, and I hate bullying, corruption and violence, almost as much as crooked puppy killing cops. Guess I’m not made of the “right stuff”,

Lets put it like this
Early 80s and my brother in law performing his internship at a hospital in Chicago , Il.
1) metal detectors over all entrance ways into all schools . Why ? 8 year old kids were bringing their parent's .44 and Desert Eagles to school for show and tell

2) It was mandatory ALL apartment complexes have the iron bars over every single window. No exceptions or they were fined.

3) The E.R. staff at the hospital were dang near working around the clock for days on end . Gunshot wounds.

4) If you were mugged on the street after 6:00 pm , the police did not ask what happened. They asked why you were on the street past 6:00 pm

And that was the 80s

Now , what the hell would you have the police patrol with ?
Straws and spitballs ?
/End Rant.

It is not what they use, it’s what they do with it. They need their weapons, just as much as they need strict supervision to prevent them from overreacting and from using excessive force.

a reply to: Gothmog

originally posted by: thefourthjokerscard
I dont like that i dont really know where to push or send this idea to. I dont personally know anybody that has been affected by this. But would take great consideration the effort it might take to get this looked at not nessasarly considered. Cops on a street level should not be able to have guns. Having tazors and the use of backup, there should be an elite force that has guns. They are there to protect and serve. If it is a gun crime, use the elite team who is specialised to make those final choices. I think that in respect of those that have been affected by this, would appreciate it.

Right. So they can be gunned down easily by all the gun-wielding, criminal bastards out there.

Not hardly.

Those of us who have had friends in blue killed by them wouldn't "appreciate it".

A real solution would be mandated body cameras for all police. They would record their entire shift not just when they want.

If the police "forget" to wear it or charge it for their shift there would be leniency. A three-strike type of rule maybe. A mistake could be made once or twice, but if they are shown to be incompetent in such a procedure then they should no longer be employed.

There would need to be a civilian oversight group that has access to the footage as well.


Cameras have been the bane to a lot of officers in the recent past. They love it when they can control what is recorded, but get very upset when they are being recorded by the citizens. That should have been a warning sign for a lot of people right there.

Exactly!
Their entire workday should be recorded. “For their safety and ours”. Total transparency. Giving someone the power to take a life should not be taken lightly. The police needs to obide by the same laws as the rest of us and should be held accountable if they don’t.


a reply to: Grimpachi

There a lot of videos where police have done 180s when they realized they were being recorded. More so now that people can live stream and the videos can't be deleted.

Here is a recent one where the officer refused to identify himself nor did he get his superior when asked or give the reason why he pulled over a driver.

originally posted by: seedofchucky
a reply to: thefourthjokerscard

You know what helps avoid excessive force ? Complying , not breaking the law in the first place. 99.9 percent it will be avoided !

And if you've done nothing wrong and are having right rights infringed upon, you have every right to be secure in your person.

Not shot at for pulling your pants up while commandos yell contradictory orders at you while you're #ting yourself just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

a reply to: andy06shake

The media exploit these situations for the awe effect and ratings. Need proof? I’d bet out of all the encounters police have with animals, a very small percentage of those situations ends up with a dead pet. I’m not saying cops haven’t killed innocent animals, but saying it’s a problem in the US is a hell of an overstatement. I’m not going to do the research for you but I bet if you linked all the stories you could find, it would be few and far between.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

One dead dog or person is enough in my book.

I'm not saying Police should not carry firearms considering everyone else in the US are perfectly free to do so, as it would be counterproductive to the rule of law.

But that does not mean better training and phycological screening processes should not be introduced thus mitigate the issues associated with killing sometimes innocent people and animals.

I had been following the Harding st case from before it was thought that it was setup. Goines the officer being charged with murder had a stolen gun in his car and various drugs. If he hadn't been hospitalized for being shot I believe he would have gotten rid of the evidence or planted it. This is another reason all officers should be made to wear cameras. People are still claiming he was a good cop, but his record has another shooting incident that is very similar to this.


Possible Houston Shooting Coverup

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I authored a thread a while back on this very subject, disarming law enforcement. I think it’s relevant to the OP’s suggestion of having “armed response officers” like in the UK. It just won’t work.

The statistics simply don’t support the narrative of some unchecked epidemic of police killing people. There are millions of police/civilian interactions a day, 365 days a year. Out of those a literal handful result in unjustified killings. Is one too many? Of course it is, but the fact remains the situation is not what the media portrays.

Body worn cameras work both ways. For every officer who’s refused to call his supervisor (insider tip: in my state, I don’t have to call a supervisor just because you demand one), there’s a civilian who’s alleged racism or excessive force and the BWC has shown there absolutely wasn’t. I think people who feel BWCs should be running and monitored at all times during a shift are pretty weird for wanting to watch cops take dumps, and it probably won’t work out how they want.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am sure no one would want to see a cop take a dumb and no one should be made to watch it. The problem is there have already been cases where officers have been caught by their own cameras planting evidence because they didn't realize the camera records the previous 30 seconds before they hit record.

Dumb on their part, but I doubt many other officers are that dumb and the bad ones have adjusted to that 30-second buffer. Maybe the cameras don't need to be on the entire time and instead the buffer should be extended to an hour. The other thing I have seen officers do is somehow mute the recording while they are in the middle of detaining someone. If they are doing their job correctly and honestly why would they do that? To me, it is attempting to control the narrative to skew the evidence. Perhaps such functions should be removed and the buffer after the camera is turned off should be extended.

originally posted by: thefourthjokerscard
I dont like that i dont really know where to push or send this idea to. I dont personally know anybody that has been affected by this. But would take great consideration the effort it might take to get this looked at not nessasarly considered. Cops on a street level should not be able to have guns. Having tazors and the use of backup, there should be an elite force that has guns. They are there to protect and serve. If it is a gun crime, use the elite team who is specialised to make those final choices. I think that in respect of those that have been affected by this, would appreciate it.

This post is so naive and oblivious to how the real world works. At the same time you take guns away from Cops are you also taking them away from people or more specifically criminals? If not then I'm not sure how you can be serious.

You can't honestly believe in a world where criminals are armed that Cops should not be armed?

Let's just play through a scenario.

I'm a lazy, waste of flesh criminal doing something illegal and I'm armed.

Now I'm a cop, "stop doing your crime"

Criminal pulls out gun.

Cop, "please wait while I call the gun cops

Criminal " lulz"