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.

 

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Gee, how dare the civilians (who pay your salary) expect those that chose a career, again, to SERVE AND PROTECT, to be well trained with the lethal weapons they carry, and to be able to make a logical decision on which shot to take given the situation.

Not trying to be a jerk, but dont give me the 'poor me' garbage.


I totally agree.

For anyone who is a Trekkie and watched Star Trek TNG, is there a cop out there that would have made it as an officer in Starfleet working in security?

The people we hire as cops are quite frankly not good enough. This is deliberate, the police have created a good old boys club amongst them, the district attorneys, and judges where they ignore each others wrong doing while using the power of their unions to continually lobby the legislature to make more things illegal, to make killing a cop worse than a regular citizen, to make shooting first legit if they think they see a weapon.

All society really needs are detectives to investigate murder, rape, and robbery. Instead we have legions of chicken-# ticket writers and consensual-crime busters.

Cops are thugs with a badge, we need to bust up their unions, and it is high time the public put them on a leash.




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontblink
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 


Agreed, the police have been given the burden of killing in the line of duty to protect the citizenry from those who would do us grievous harm. Taking a police officer's right to respond with equal force is irresponsible, it will lead to more dead cops and civilians.

I support our police and their right to self defense. Sidebar, does this law pertain to an off duty cop as well? Is a police office confronted in his or her home required to shoot to wound? Where is the line?


Your right, they do have the right to self defense. But I think you need to look at the true constitutional definition of self defense. These cops from the west coast to the east of become nothing more than a para-military organization that believes they are above the law, just because of that lil piece of tin on their chest. I for one do not respect the badge for the sole reason that they have been known to persecute, and harass the innocent people. I've encountered these types of cops, and I can tell you, when there buddies show up, it just gets worse.
Wearing there combat boots and swat gear..like they're some type of bad asses with a badge, makes me laugh in their faces! Btw, it helps really study up on state, local, and fed laws so you have a leg to stand on! These cops are a joke nowadays, and have no honor! They run into dogs, people, cats etc., and their first thought is to draw and shoot!
Go ahead and back the badge, thats your right, and I respect that...but when those very badges come to force you into your home for the evening, and they get rude and physical with you for simply asking questions....ill be there to say...Told you SO!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


Absolutely a beautiful piece of work, that is precise and right on!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


Here's the thing:

I don't pull my gun unless there is a clear and present danger to my life or the lives of others. That is what natural self defense is all about.

I don't use weapons in hand to hand combat and I am well trained enough to not have to hurt someone if I don't have to.

I do not say or do things to escalate tension in a situation(chest puffing stupidity and whatnot).

I don't threaten people. Ever.

I have never been in trouble with the law. I do not have an itchy trigger finger(unless I'm at the range). And I am extremely diplomatic in those kinds of confrontation.

Direct threats to my life are not taken lightly though. Attacking me with ANY weapon may get a criminal seriously injured or killed. I have had one too many experiences living in the rough places of Vegas and L.A. to not respond in overwhelming fashion when having my life threatened by some idiot with a weapon(whatever that may be).

To have that right legislated away from people who are Required to go into those places is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever had to justly defend their life.

It is already illegal to murder, if someone is trying to murder you it shouldn't be illegal for you to meet or exceed that force to defend life and limb.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dbloch7986
 




I should mention that if I were to use lethal force on an intruder intent on killing me, I would have to go to trial to defend myself. It should be that way anytime anyone uses lethal force in a situation that is not related to war.


Really? How does that work? 'Logic' like that makes me see red.

Ever hear of home invasions? Recently near here, a woman was hacked to death and her daughter severely wounded by punks that entered her house and attacked them while they slept. The punks used machetes and knives. The woman was decapitated in front of her 11 year old daughter.

And bleeding heart liberals want that that poor woman, had she survived and shot the intruders, to go on trial?

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell.

Luckily, more mature, sane minds have upheld the castle Doctrine.

I have no more words for you.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This bill is in need of passing. We have seen all too often as of late where people are killed (or their dogs) needlessly. Cops must be reigned in.

The next time you hear about a cop being shot, ask yourself if what he was doing was worth dying for. Stopping a car that is suspected of having 30lbs of pot in it....is that really worth dying for?

Very, very rarely does an officer get killed where the officer followed safety protocols. Even more rarely does an officer get killed when he is not confronting victimless crime.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   


The people we hire as cops are quite frankly not good enough. This is deliberate, the police have created a good old boys club amongst them


Right for the wrong reason there. In the 1970s I believe it was, a lawsuit was brought against the LAPD alleging that because only 3 of 10 women were tough enough to pass the standards compared to 7 of 10 men, that this made it sexist and unfair. I believe there might also have been some height requirements.

There were those who thought that 3 in 10 was a higher ratio of women than they personally knew who could take down a man let alone one possibly on drugs, and that the "standards" at least suggested that there WERE standards of a sort.

Some people thought that lowering the standards so as many women could pass was the equivalent of "giving fake test scores" to minority college kids, and as ridiculous as that seems on paper, it's a little more serious when we're talking about life and death situations.

The women won. The courts deemed it sexist. Now you can find little 5'1 95# women walking the beat. I'm a 5'6 woman and I'm not afraid of them (despite having seen in martial arts what even small people can do) so it's hard for me to imagine that just about any man would be. There is no possible way they could run at a comparable speed with someone a foot taller let alone a man to boot, and I could detail the rest of a long list of good reasons why police officers ought to have tough standards and a height requirement, but my 4'11" former Marine Corps sister would kick my ass.

Worse though, it meant that since the standards had to be greatly lowered across the board, it also meant that the standards for men were drastically less. Now you have to be a serious pussy if you're a man and you can't make it through most academies -- yes they are tough but if the majority of women can do it physically, men certainly can. Although the case was against LAPD, country-wide most PDs have followed because the precedent of that case would make them easy prey for the same suit.

I studied criminal justice in college and I came very close to choosing law enforcement. I had a genuine "vision" in college, and saw myself in the future, and what it did to me (psychologically), and I literally walked away from all of it, I was so profoundly affected. So I am not saying that women can't be good cops and soldiers, I wouldn't say that. I'm just saying that there should be very tough standards so that if a woman IS a cop or soldier, we KNOW she is tough. Men shouldn't have to 'carry' them, and more to the point, society as a whole should not have to 'carry' the people who are not of a caliber that should be in that role, because of political correctness.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Ahh yes, the old "there was this one guy once who was impervious to bullets so cops should shoot to kill" argument...

you can do better than that....


I don't need to do any better. But you do, in defending such a foolish proposal.

Shoot to incapacitate. That's what TASERS and pepper spray are for.


That phrase is no longer written on cruisers, which, once again, is my point. That phrase is no longer written on cruisers, which, once again, is my point.


Where on God's Green Earth did you get that piece of disinformation? Did you just make it up?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Police in larger cities do not hire people who are too qualified. This reduces attrition.


Someone like myself, who needs more than a daily routine, would attrit rather quickly. Where as someone who likes routine, and paperwork, and all that jazz is a more ideal candidate.

The sacrifice is that cops are not as bright as you may want them to be. The upside is the reduced attrition, theoretically, provides for a more stable and experienced police force.

6 goes to one, and a half a dozen to the other.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This thread is filled with fascist idiots.

Cops made the CHOICE to put their life on the line for the State, and to put themselves in a position where they WILL have to shoot people for abstract political necessities (like the now-sacrosanct "Law"). THey have to digest this choice once and for all and stop using the government to back them when they kill somebody, no matter if it's out of self-defense or not.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontblink
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 


Agreed, the police have been given the burden of killing in the line of duty to protect the citizenry from those who would do us grievous harm. Taking a police officer's right to respond with equal force is irresponsible, it will lead to more dead cops and civilians.

I support our police and their right to self defense. Sidebar, does this law pertain to an off duty cop as well? Is a police office confronted in his or her home required to shoot to wound? Where is the line?


I agree!! However when they stripped the right for the common citizen to respond with equal force to a life threatening situation,is when it all started going down hill. It is not only your right to protect yourself from harm,it is your responsibility to do so!!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
I think this should be decided on a case by case basis by a jury of peers. Officers should have to go to trial every time they kill someone. Most of the time they're being filmed or recorded, so it shouldn't be a problem to prove if they are in the right. If it ends in a hung jury then the case is dismissed.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Cops have rights you don't, in Cal reference: AB301 rights.. long before any trial that could result in "punitive action", there are administrative hoops to jump through... resolving shootings via trial could take a long time.

3304. (b) No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency
without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.


www.slopoa.com...

When someone is shot to death, even by a cop, around here its SOP for homicide detectives to investigate like they would any other violent death... sometimes, albeit rarely, charges are filed.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


But is 30 lbs of pot worth anyone dying over? That is what happens.

I do not understand why officers are asked to use deadly force on crimes that have no victims. It just boggles my mind.

Is it really worth dying so that i can keep someone from getting high? Or make them wear their seatbelt?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

So you'd get treated the same way as every other citizen? Oh my god, what is the world coming to?


Are they living the same life as every other citizen? Are they facing the same issues regularly as every other citizen? Can we really compare?

I have a paper cut, damn it. And I spent a freakin hour searching website code last night for what turned out to be a misplaced apostrophe. I'm not sure cops are up to dealing with the hazards of my life. But if you're so sure that they're having the same experiences at the same frequency in the same situation as the rest of us, then yeah, they should be treated just the same as us, with no further considerations. I haven't noticed any particular need to shoot anybody, or even yell at them (if my 13 year old doesn't count) in a really long time, in fact. I don't know what their problem might be to cause such behavior. Throw the book at them already.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by dbloch7986
 




I should mention that if I were to use lethal force on an intruder intent on killing me, I would have to go to trial to defend myself. It should be that way anytime anyone uses lethal force in a situation that is not related to war.


Really? How does that work? 'Logic' like that makes me see red.

Ever hear of home invasions? Recently near here, a woman was hacked to death and her daughter severely wounded by punks that entered her house and attacked them while they slept. The punks used machetes and knives. The woman was decapitated in front of her 11 year old daughter.

And bleeding heart liberals want that that poor woman, had she survived and shot the intruders, to go on trial?

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell.

Luckily, more mature, sane minds have upheld the castle Doctrine.

I have no more words for you.


You completely missed the point. It doesnt matter the situation. Had this lady pulled a 12 guage and blown the intruders away, she would have had to go to court to justify her actions, and rightfully so.

Those darn bleeding heart liberals always wanting people to get hacked up in their beds at night....



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Ahh yes, the old "there was this one guy once who was impervious to bullets so cops should shoot to kill" argument...

you can do better than that....


I don't need to do any better. But you do, in defending such a foolish proposal.

Shoot to incapacitate. That's what TASERS and pepper spray are for.


That phrase is no longer written on cruisers, which, once again, is my point. That phrase is no longer written on cruisers, which, once again, is my point.


Where on God's Green Earth did you get that piece of disinformation? Did you just make it up?


You seriously think that because one time some guy kept coming after being hit, that it should justify always shooting to kill? Yikes man....

No, it's fact. Something that people dont seem to put a lot of stock in around here anymore.

Disinformaation? Step outta mom's basement and go look at a few cop cars before you throw that ridiculously overused phrase around.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



The next time you hear about a cop being shot, ask yourself if what he was doing was worth dying for. Stopping a car that is suspected of having 30lbs of pot in it....is that really worth dying for?


Typical liberal line of questioning. Cops are always the bad guy and the criminal is always the 'victim'.

The question you should be asking is: Is 30 lbs of pot really worth murdering a cop over? :shk:

Cops are obligated to enforce the laws. They don't get a choice as to which laws they enforce.


Very, very rarely does an officer get killed where the officer followed safety protocols. Even more rarely does an officer get killed when he is not confronting victimless crime.


You've got it bass-ackwards. Cops killed in the line of duty are almost always pursuing crimes of violence, not "victimless crime".



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   


But is 30 lbs of pot worth anyone dying over? That is what happens. I do not understand why officers are asked to use deadly force on crimes that have no victims. It just boggles my mind. Is it really worth dying so that i can keep someone from getting high? Or make them wear their seatbelt?


I agree COMPLETELY. However this is not an issue of law enforcement officers, this is an issue of asinine laws that intentionally criminalize a ton of generally harmless and/or except to self behavior. The laws need changing or amending.

LEOs often agree completely as well I might add, but their job is to enforce the laws, and they do not get to arbitrarily, individually decide what laws not to enforce. They sometimes have the opportunity to 'not look too closely' at something they consider generally harmless if illegal, just like they can sometimes look very closely at something that is generally legal but not harmless (the 'spirit not letter of the law' in traffic is a simple example, safety is the real point), but when it comes to specific busts or traffic stops, the job is the job.

The problem is that whether the civilian involved is a nice guy who just has some weed, or whether he's a meth dealer, a) often the LEOs do not actually know that up front (because usually if they did and it's a home invasion they don't give a rat's butt about most weed--narcs are working their way up the ladder to vastly bigger fish than that), and b) it doesn't matter to their safety during the situation. Perfectly law abiding sweet young women have been known to pull out a shotgun and blow an officer away because they perceived a greater threat than existed. Unfortunately this means that no matter how "innocuous" the crime or potential violation might be, the risk of bodily harm to the officers is really not any different.

I agree that making criminals out of people for 'victimless crimes' is beyond retarded. It is unfair to the law enforcement officers just like it is unfair to the citizens arrested for such trivial crap. It being trivial does not make the people on either side of that equation any safer.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



The next time you hear about a cop being shot, ask yourself if what he was doing was worth dying for. Stopping a car that is suspected of having 30lbs of pot in it....is that really worth dying for?


Typical liberal line of questioning. Cops are always the bad guy and the criminal is always the 'victim'.

The question you should be asking is: Is 30 lbs of pot really worth murdering a cop over? :shk:

Cops are obligated to enforce the laws. They don't get a choice as to which laws they enforce.


Very, very rarely does an officer get killed where the officer followed safety protocols. Even more rarely does an officer get killed when he is not confronting victimless crime.


You've got it bass-ackwards. Cops killed in the line of duty are almost always pursuing crimes of violence, not "victimless crime".


Quit trolling. This isnt about liberal or conservative.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I can understand the cops frustration. However, they sign up for the job, knowing that there are real dangers involved. I don't recall a single innocent person, that died at the hands of a cop, signing up for death.

I propose that any cop that doesn't like this bill just go ahead and resign...and take your itchy trigger fingers with you.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Aggie Man]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join