Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

Originally posted by Revealation
If most cops would do actual police work and get out of the fantasy, movie image tough guy (in their own heads) maybe they could do actual police work...cause as I like to state the only thing MOST cops are good for is coming to arrest you or to take you away in a body bag.

I'll be the 1st to tell you I judge you cops as they judge us civilians,err, or is it criminals, just that I at least have the common decency to treat everyone decent until their actions or accusations prove otherwise.

On the off chance you care, this is where I stopped reading your post.

When I need advice on training and job performance, I will go to those people who have demonstrated the ability to perform the job and are certified in what they do. If I need advice on how to be paranoid and sterotype an entire group while saying in the same sentence that I treat everyone fair until proven otherwise, Ill come find you.

Dont hold your breath though.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Homedawg

 

So you don't mind being treated like a criminal, because you aren't a criminal? Sad the way people have been brainwashed to think these days...

In what manner is homedawg being treated like a criminal?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Homedawg

 

So you don't mind being treated like a criminal, because you aren't a criminal? Sad the way people have been brainwashed to think these days...

Being asked to comply isnt being treated like a criminal...I neither do criminal acts,nor have I,as a 20+ year LEO,treated anyone like they are until proven to be so....however,having walked up to a dark car at 2am and not being able to see inside,or know whats going on in there,I sympathize with officers who feel the need to check things out...if you havent been in that situation,you have no grounds to attack someone who has....if your precious feelings get hurt,tough...we live with the reality of a wall in Washington DC inscribed yearly with over 200 new names of officers who didnt watch their P's and Q's and paid the price(and more attacks happening each month)....I have also seen 1st hand what happens when Law Enforcement goes away(im a Katrina survivor)....if the choice is a little inconvience at a traffic stop or anachary,Ill take the search and release....and with lib dims in power,you can bet the intrusions are just going to get more prevalent as they continue to solidify their power base...witness the new gun-control-by-executive-order initives being drawn up a we speak...

Originally posted by daggyz
Don't know, but it should. There is no reason for anyone to be carrying a weapon. If the Police shot everyone who carried one, no one would a carry one and the streets would be free of that element, either due to fewer weapons, fewer people who carry weapons and both....


I'm not serious, but it would solve a problem.

it is this type of statement that is the downfall of EVERY country. Criminals and the military will never sureender their weapons, so yea, lets leave the actual "Citizens" defenseless. That's a great idea.

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by daggyz
Don't know, but it should. There is no reason for anyone to be carrying a weapon. If the Police shot everyone who carried one, no one would a carry one and the streets would be free of that element, either due to fewer weapons, fewer people who carry weapons and both....


I'm not serious, but it would solve a problem.

it is this type of statement that is the downfall of EVERY country. Criminals and the military will never sureender their weapons, so yea, lets leave the actual "Citizens" defenseless. That's a great idea.

Agree 1000%...and Im a cop

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Just because there is no constitutional amendment that says drugs are illegal, does not make them legal. As stated Congress, as well as the states, can make laws. If the people dont like the law, then vote in representatives who will change it (which we have seen happen in California with marijuana, assisted suicide in oregon, prostitution in Nevada etc.

your dwelling on victimiless crimes to justify your position on criminalized non-violent crimes. why dont you guys REALLY focus on rapists, murderers, armed robbers- #, recommend capital punsihment on their asses! Marijuana is NOT even close to being legal in california, thats why i can still suffer a felony offense for having a LITTLE more than an ounce. even though i have a doctors recommendation , i can still be taken to a precinct and hassled until it is proven i have a phys. recom.

if you truly understood and respected common law (which is still in practice in the US), you wouldnt be persecuting non-violent criminals. As long as im not causing harm, attempting to cause harm, or showing potential to cause harm (DUI/DWI) why would you even desire to confront someone for a "crime" that is victimless? while statutory law dictates what laws you enforce and what laws you dont, you are still to adhere to the enforcement of the common law, above all else- correct?

P.S.- i meant to tell you this last time, Be safe out there dude! its NOT going to be people that think like me that will be causing you problems.

i just cant figure this quote thing out... im a lost cause.

edit on 26-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)

reply to post by WJjeeper


Everything in between [quote] and [/quote] will be in the quote box.

Try reading,this post , hopefully help you out.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by WJjeeper

 

Everything in between [quote] and [/quote] will be in the quote box.

edit on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:50 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

not working for me, like said- im a lost cause when it comes to computer tech (im a jeep guy)

What bothers me most about all this is how delusional, even psychotically delusional, police are.

Let's start with delusion No. 1:

"Police work is dangerous, they put their lives on the line every day."

www.bls.gov...

In 2007, police and sheriff fatality rates were 21.8, compared to 39.5 for farmers and ranchers, 17.4 for firefighters, 16.1 for miscellaneous agricultural workers, 111.8 for fishermen, 86.4 for loggers, 19.5 for construction laborers, 29.4 for roofers, 45.5 for structural iron and steelworkers, 13.7 for construction helpers, 29.1 for electrical and power line workers, 70.7 for pilots and flight engineers, 28.2 for drivers, sales workers, truck drivers, 18.9 for taxi drivers, 22.8 for refuse and recyclable material collectors, 27.9 for crop production....

There's so many more dangerous jobs that I won't bother listing them, go look for yourself. I picked 2007 as a random year, it's pretty much the same for all, though: police work is far less dangerous than many common jobs.

So the idea that police work is exceptionally dangerous is a nonsensical delusion unsupported by the facts. When you factor in the personal responsibility for the fatalities, i.e., police who escalate a non-violent situation into a lethal encounter based on the delusion Number 2, i.e., perfectly avoidable fatalities that were caused at least in part by unjustified aggressive escalations, the fatality rates would most likely drop by at least a fifth, making the job even less dangerous.

Delusion Number 2:

"I thought it was a gun."

Since most police operate under Delusion Number 1, they are predisposed to view every encounter with paranoia, rather than healthy respect. Given the propensity for "throw-downs", i.e., weapons placed by police after the fact to justify lethal force (please don't bother telling me it doesn't happen: I know from direct experience and direct police testimony that it does), the number of unjustified shootings by police is simply appalling: police are more of a public threat to the average citizen than criminals are. How many people have been gunned down by cops who shared a paranoid delusion that saw cellphones, wallets, videotapes and any number of innocuous objects as weapons?

Delusion Number 3:

"Split-second decision required."

The first two delusions fuel the third. In reality, the timing of encounters is nearly always pushed by police rather than suspects. They want compliance and answers now, immediately, any failure to comply within their self-imposed time limit increases the probability of violence on their part. Why the rush? As stated earlier, they have no idea of what occurred prior to their arrival, all they know, really, is that tensions are high. So who thinks it's a really good idea to burst onto a scene that could have been in the process of peaceful resolution with screaming demands for immediate compliance follwed by escalation? Why the artificially high speed? From my point of view police are not paid to patrol, they are paid to deal with incidents, taking as much time as necessary. Why not quietly enter a scene and project calmness instead of aggression? Why not allow a highly charged individuals to vent a little and then sort out what is happening, while simply preventing violent escalation instead of pursuing it? Who cares if it takes an hour longer? Dealing with real situations takes precedence over patrolling for potential ones, or would, if not for:

Delusion Number 4:

"Police are there to protect the citizens."

Actually, the primary function of most police departments is to generate revenues through fines: look where they put most of their efforts and energy. As in the situations cited above, when they are in a position to actually actively protect the citizens who pay their salaries, they are in a huge hurry to "resolve" the situation, usually by arresting someone, rather than facilitating an actual genuine resolution. In actuality, by training, procedure, and custom, the very first person a cop protects is him/herself, then other cops, then friends, allies and employers and only after that, the general public. Police serve and protect those who employ them over those who pay them: the politicians responsible for their budgets, not the taxpaying citizens who provide the funds whether they will or nil. In any case, they are mostly reactive, and you can't be "protected" after the fact. In many cases, they actually foster and protect ciminals within the community, so long as that criminal gives them something of value. The question always is, or should be, valuable to whom? The police or the public?

When you add the prevalence of steroid use/abuse among LEOs, is it really any wonder that police react on a hair-trigger and delude themselves into believing every encounter is life-threatening?

I have utter contempt for police who act under the influence of the delusions I've cited. I have more contempt for the management practices that foster them. Police work is most certainly NOT particularly dangerous compared with other lines of work, and policies that govern their interactions with the public should not be based on the delusion that it is. Policies should require that police enter a scene quietly and unaggressively, displaying calm, resolute patience to tone it down before making and demands. Most people respond to aggression with aggression, so acting aggressively in a tense situation will nearly always guarantee a violent response.

I, personally, have disarmed gangbangers trying to crash a college dance I was responsible for, taking their alcohol and weapons without myself being armed or aggressive, merely calm and determined. I have also disarmed a biker intent on shooting his cheating girlfriend, again unarmed, although with him I had to use a little speed to close the gap and remove his gun.

It can be done with proper training and attitude.

But as long as police continue to base their actions on delusions, innocent people will die justified by those delusions.

reply to post by Homedawg


Police officers demanding people get out of the car, just so they can search you for a weapon are assuming you are a psycho with a gun until proven otherwise, so they can feel safe. Police are the only people allowed to treat people that way, it is crap. Do I have a right to ask a cop to leave his gun in the frikken car so I feel safe? No of course not.

reply to post by apacheman


Bravo Apacheman

You have put in words what i have been trying to say for a long time.

I think the main point is that people react to aggression WITH aggression and having someone barking orders and screaming in your face in an already tense situation will almost guarantee a bad outcome. Then that outcome is used to BACKDATE the reason the aggression was used to begin with.

The LEOs often come in barking orders....their hand on their gun.....demanding respect.....when just a little respect toward us would go a long ways.................instead we get.....in the words of an LEO here......if it hurts your feelings tuff

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by byteshertz

 

No where in this thread has it been stated a person is presumed guilty by officers. You are confusing officer safety in this case, and there is a huge difference. As I stated before, multiple times actually, that when we are dispatched to calls, the only information we have is whats been provided by either a 3rd party, or the main parties.

We have no way of knowing if the call is real, or what is going on that requires law enforcemen involvement. Again, we also have no way of knowing whats changed from the time the call came into, to the time we arrive on scene.

So you are more than welcome to play word games in this area, but your interpretation is 100% wrong. Also, as I have explained to others, Law Enforcement does not determine who is guilty, that is the job of the Prosecuting Attorney.

I am not playing word games:

I said you said 'worse case scenario' and that you see people as 'guilty until proven innocent' through the eyes of a cop- your exact words were:

Originally posted by Xcathdra
We respond to calls with the mindset of expecting the worst.

Please explain how you can go in to a situation expecting the worst but not feel people are guilty until proven innocent When:

This suggest you are not expecting but suspecting the worst of everyone - which is the same as seeing people as potentially guilty - so therefore they are guilty until proven innocent.

reply to post by byteshertz


You said it way better than I did. I need to work on my communication skills again I guess

reply to post by Xcathdra


LOL brother. I knew this cat screwed the pooch when he took you on. I agree, he is not LEO. If he is he is a poor one at best. If I stopped everything that I viewed as a shady character, I would be stopping people all day with little time for anything else. It's called "cop eye". Buy some of us use for discretion than others evidently. Keep up the good work. I've been doing this a long time but I always learn from your post. Stay safe my friend. I can't believe this guy joined ATS just to look like an idiot and to give cops a worse name than we have already.
Seeashrink, AKA; Sarge

reply to post by WJjeeper


You still have absolutely no clue how law enforcement works do you? Go aftter rapists, murders etc etc..really?

How?

Since people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, you defeat your own argument.

In order for the police to go "after" a rapist, or murder, the actual crime must occur first. Absent that, how does one "prevent" a rapist from raping a person?

This is where this argument fails, that cops should go after real criminals instead of drugs / dwi etc. As I, and others, have stated many many many many times before that the reason for Police contact is because of a law violation.

If you want to smoke weed, more power to you. If you want to do it in public, more power to you. People need to stop being shocked and pissed that cops arrest people on illegal drug possession, especially when its done outside the privacy of a persons own home.

Originally posted by apacheman
What bothers me most about all this is how delusional, even psychotically delusional, police are.

Let's start with delusion No. 1:

"Police work is dangerous, they put their lives on the line every day."

www.bls.gov...

In 2007, police and sheriff fatality rates were 21.8, compared to 39.5 for farmers and ranchers, 17.4 for firefighters, 16.1 for miscellaneous agricultural workers, 111.8 for fishermen, 86.4 for loggers, 19.5 for construction laborers, 29.4 for roofers, 45.5 for structural iron and steelworkers, 13.7 for construction helpers, 29.1 for electrical and power line workers, 70.7 for pilots and flight engineers, 28.2 for drivers, sales workers, truck drivers, 18.9 for taxi drivers, 22.8 for refuse and recyclable material collectors, 27.9 for crop production....

And whats the stats breakdown between accidental death verses homicide? Comparing apples to aqua purple crayons doesnt work, nor does it support your argument here. The majority of the professions you listed have death rates that are pretty much based solely on accidents.

Law Enforcement deaths also occur because of accidents, and an even larger percentage occur form being killed by another person. HUGE difference.

Originally posted by apacheman
So the idea that police work is exceptionally dangerous is a nonsensical delusion unsupported by the facts.

The only delusional part about these stats is how severely they are being twisted in order to support an argument that is not true, nor supported by the information. I ask again, how many of the professions listed were killed intentionally by another person?

Originally posted by apacheman
Delusion Number 2:

"I thought it was a gun."

Since most police operate under Delusion Number 1, they are predisposed to view every encounter with paranoia, rather than healthy respect. Given the propensity for "throw-downs", i.e., weapons placed by police after the fact to justify lethal force (please don't bother telling me it doesn't happen: I know from direct experience and direct police testimony that it does), the number of unjustified shootings by police is simply appalling: police are more of a public threat to the average citizen than criminals are. How many people have been gunned down by cops who shared a paranoid delusion that saw cellphones, wallets, videotapes and any number of innocuous objects as weapons?

So a few bad apples makes an entire profession guilty? If we use your line of irrational thinking, then we can assume you are a subversive and should be arrested and locked up without trial. If you do any research at all, instead of trying to make an argument based on extreme ignorance in this area, you would understand Supreme Court rulings and the term totality of circumstances,

Originally posted by apacheman
Delusion Number 3:

"Split-second decision required."

snip....utter BS argument

Again, do some research and understand how something works before commenting would you please?

Originally posted by apacheman
Delusion Number 4:

"Police are there to protect the citizens."

Actually, the primary function of most police departments is to generate revenues through fines: look where they put most of their efforts and energy. As in the situations cited above, when they are in a position to actually actively protect the citizens who pay their salaries, they are in a huge hurry to "resolve" the situation, usually by arresting someone, rather than facilitating an actual genuine resolution. In actuality, by training, procedure, and custom, the very first person a cop protects is him/herself, then other cops, then friends, allies and employers and only after that, the general public. Police serve and protect those who employ them over those who pay them: the politicians responsible for their budgets, not the taxpaying citizens who provide the funds whether they will or nil. In any case, they are mostly reactive, and you can't be "protected" after the fact. In many cases, they actually foster and protect ciminals within the community, so long as that criminal gives them something of value. The question always is, or should be, valuable to whom? The police or the public?

I see we are going for a record on uninformed, ignorant and parnoid delusional comments today. The function of Law Enforcement is not to protect the individual, but to protect society. The profit argument is BS, since its against the law for a public entity to generate a profit = Cities, Counties, Federal Government. Again, please do research.

Originally posted by apacheman
When you add the prevalence of steroid use/abuse among LEOs, is it really any wonder that police react on a hair-trigger and delude themselves into believing every encounter is life-threatening?

So lemme see if I understand this... If a cop does drugs, its a bad thing which alters how we do our job and places the public in danger. When drugs are done by the people and are arrested for it, the police are the bad guys infringing on a persons rights....

Originally posted by apacheman
I have utter contempt for police who act under the influence of the delusions I've cited. I have more contempt for the management practices that foster them. Police work is most certainly NOT particularly dangerous compared with other lines of work, and policies that govern their interactions with the public should not be based on the delusion that it is. Policies should require that police enter a scene quietly and unaggressively, displaying calm, resolute patience to tone it down before making and demands. Most people respond to aggression with aggression, so acting aggressively in a tense situation will nearly always guarantee a violent response.

The only person delusional is you. Police work is dangerous.... The Police should enter a situation quietly? Wtf are you talking about. Ask yourself this question - why were the police called in the first place? If the situation could be handled with an inside voice and lack of agression, then chances are the police would never have been called in the first place. Its only when the "rationale" people lose control of the situation, do the police get called.

Originally posted by apacheman
I, personally, have disarmed gangbangers trying to crash a college dance I was responsible for, taking their alcohol and weapons without myself being armed or aggressive, merely calm and determined. I have also disarmed a biker intent on shooting his cheating girlfriend, again unarmed, although with him I had to use a little speed to close the gap and remove his gun.

Care to provide more information to the situation to place it into context? I have personally done the same thing. Being part of a gang is not illegal, being in possession of a fire arm is not ilegal (unless criminal history prevents it). Depnding on what state you live in, being in possession of a firearm in public is not illegal, nor is it illegal to enter private property unless otherwise stated.

Having a group of "gangbangers" going to the club, who are not violating any laws, who check their weapons, are just like any other person, non gangbangers included.

Again, its when we get dispatched to a situation that has escalated ou of control that weapons are temporarily secured until we can figure out exactly whats going on.

Your attempt to use lawful situations in order to pain a picture of law enforcement is a joke and is FAIL.

Originally posted by apacheman
It can be done with proper training and attitude.

....as well as being done when a person obeys the law and is not part of a situation that escalates to the point of the Police being called.

Originally posted by apacheman
But as long as police continue to base their actions on delusions, innocent people will die justified by those delusions.

edit on 26-3-2011 by apacheman because: sp

edit on 26-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

What, exactly, are you smoking? extra DIV