When Police Shoot Your Family Members - Why Even Have Them At All?

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I live in America, Im 50. When I was young at least up until about 17/18 the cops were just cops. It seemed as if violence was the LAST thing they wanted. We were taught to trust them. Somewhere in between then and now it all changed. A complete 360. BAck then I have had run ins with the law, drinking under age and the like. Most would just make you pour it out and a stern warning. Nowadays, it would be an arrest, a conviction, a criminal record, and a damn ton of money paid into the system.

Something else Ive noticed, I may be just my imagination, but you just dont see older LE any more. All in my area are young and usually not from my state. Rare to find a City Police Officer actually from N.C. I have friends that are sheriff's deputies, but have been for years. They even notice the age thing. Most, well at least very high percentage are militarily trained. IMHO this is not good to do. No remorse factor. No fear factor. No compassion factor. LE nation wide now look at ALL OF US whether victim or perp as the same. This is also not good. Today's LE do not protect & serve, they simply arrived to late and sort out the victims, and in some case's, create new ones. I agree with other post. It's a crap shoot calling LE in these times.




posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Klassified

Statistics can be skewed. When I personally hear good veteran cops say basically what I just said from their own mouths. I take notice.


Before anyone asks, consider that advice as repeated from my own fingertips. What people may be missing is that when bad cops are tolerated by good cops ... there are no good cops. You either have a respectable police force ... or you do not.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

openyourmind1262
I live in America, Im 50. When I was young at least up until about 17/18 the cops were just cops. It seemed as if violence was the LAST thing they wanted. We were taught to trust them. Somewhere in between then and now it all changed. A complete 360. BAck then I have had run ins with the law, drinking under age and the like. Most would just make you pour it out and a stern warning. Nowadays, it would be an arrest, a conviction, a criminal record, and a damn ton of money paid into the system.

Something else Ive noticed, I may be just my imagination, but you just dont see older LE any more. All in my area are young and usually not from my state. Rare to find a City Police Officer actually from N.C. I have friends that are sheriff's deputies, but have been for years. They even notice the age thing. Most, well at least very high percentage are militarily trained. IMHO this is not good to do. No remorse factor. No fear factor. No compassion factor. LE nation wide now look at ALL OF US whether victim or perp as the same. This is also not good. Today's LE do not protect & serve, they simply arrived to late and sort out the victims, and in some case's, create new ones. I agree with other post. It's a crap shoot calling LE in these times.

I have had a lot of conversations with officers and they all say the same thing that you say.

It is a pattern and it is very dangerous. I have been incessantly promoting austerity at every level of our society beginning with our own communities, that includes law enforcement. The immediate local benefits will be tremendous.

Ultimately, my hope is that the movement will progress up the chain and result in bottom up power loss for overreaching government.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Snarl

Klassified

Statistics can be skewed. When I personally hear good veteran cops say basically what I just said from their own mouths. I take notice.


Before anyone asks, consider that advice as repeated from my own fingertips. What people may be missing is that when bad cops are tolerated by good cops ... there are no good cops. You either have a respectable police force ... or you do not.

Indeed, I have been saying something similar (though decidedly more legalese). According to the laws of the land, to have knowledge of a crime but do nothing to stop or report it is tantamount to complicity.


Snarl
greencmp: Forgive me for taking the liberty of making your reply to the statistic thingy 'succinct.'

No worries, I appreciate it!
edit on 17-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I will explain this simply.

With no one to enforce laws you cannot have any laws. A society cannot exist without laws.

Do you really think everyone will just be on their best behavior with no threat of arrest or prison time being threatened?



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Klassified

Spookybelle

Klassified

Emerys
reply to post by greencmp
 


Not every police officer is dumb like the one who shot this poor guy. My father was a police officer. They definitely should have handled that situation differently, such as taser guns. Sorry for the families loss, but not every police officer is out to get you people. There are a lot of good men and women in uniform who protect you and others while you sleep.


I agree with you. But the number of psycho cops is continually growing. How long before the good cops get weeded out eventually, and all we have left are jack-booted thugs, who are barely human.


Please show us some statistics that you base that off of.

How exactly do you know the number of psycho cops are growing.

I can't wait to hear this or read an official study.


Statistics can be skewed. When I personally hear good veteran cops say basically what I just said from their own mouths. I take notice.


Or in other words, you can't produce those statistics because they do not exist.

You ought not to make generalized statements that you cannot support with fact. It hurts your credibility.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


I will explain this simply.

With no one to enforce laws you cannot have any laws. A society cannot exist without laws.

Do you really think everyone will just be on their best behavior with no threat of arrest or prison time being threatened?

Laws should be kept at a bare minimum as should law enforcement.

Society existed before laws, it created them, they failed, it created different ones, they failed, the process is continual. We now have an overabundance of absurd laws that even lawyers don't actually know, it has nothing to do with supporting society.

Yes, people behave very well in a self sufficient armed civil society.
edit on 17-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

greencmp

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


I will explain this simply.

With no one to enforce laws you cannot have any laws. A society cannot exist without laws.

Do you really think everyone will just be on their best behavior with no threat of arrest or prison time being threatened?

Laws should be kept at a bare minimum as should law enforcement.

Yes, people behave very well in an self sufficient armed civil society.
edit on 17-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Actually they do not. What happens is you have tyranny rise up by the person or group that assumes the most power. Its happened in every single civilization to date.

The police, are at least held accountable to a certain degree and prisons are filled with cops gone bad. In a society with no centralized enforcement or threat of it, you will see those with the most guns do whatever they want unchecked and you will have no recourse.

Take away law enforcement in the US and what do you honestly think will happen? Everyone will follow our current laws or are they going to do whatever they want because there is nobody there to threaten them?

What your going to see is numerous vigilante, well armed groups, going after people they think wronged them. No trial, no appeal......people will be judge, jury, and executioner and whether they are wrong or right it won't matter as there is nobody there to stop them.

This will force other people to get their vigilante groups together to go after that group. Basically in the end, whoever ends up with the most guns will win.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Spookybelle

greencmp

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


I will explain this simply.

With no one to enforce laws you cannot have any laws. A society cannot exist without laws.

Do you really think everyone will just be on their best behavior with no threat of arrest or prison time being threatened?

Laws should be kept at a bare minimum as should law enforcement.

Yes, people behave very well in an self sufficient armed civil society.
edit on 17-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Actually they do not. What happens is you have tyranny rise up by the person or group that assumes the most power. Its happened in every single civilization to date.

The police, are at least held accountable to a certain degree and prisons are filled with cops gone bad. In a society with no centralized enforcement or threat of it, you will see those with the most guns do whatever they want unchecked and you will have no recourse.

Take away law enforcement in the US and what do you honestly think will happen? Everyone will follow our current laws or are they going to do whatever they want because there is nobody there to threaten them?

What your going to see is numerous vigilante, well armed groups, going after people they think wronged them. No trial, no appeal......people will be judge, jury, and executioner and whether they are wrong or right it won't matter as there is nobody there to stop them.

This will force other people to get their vigilante groups together to go after that group. Basically in the end, whoever ends up with the most guns will win.

Ah yes, the 'wild west' defense. No, you are wrong, an armed public is the safest society to live in.

Please consider this for a moment, it is illegal for a police officer to prevent crime.

I am not insisting on no laws, the justice system handles trials and sentencing. Many towns in America have no police. Did you know that?
edit on 18-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Your OP asks the question of why do we need law enforcement at all.

Now you are saying we do need some so I am a bit confused at the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is a certain number that, once passed, automatically corrupts police?

If not then why would you condone some officers but not all of them?

Your kind of jumping all over the place here.

I think you missed my point about it being impossible to have laws with nobody to enforce them. This means that Congress and our legal system are now irrelevant.

Are you really comfortable trusting our giant food production or medical technologies to corporations? Do you think they would care more about being honest and fair with you or taking your money?

With no police how will you keep them in check?



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


Your OP asks the question of why do we need law enforcement at all.

Now you are saying we do need some so I am a bit confused at the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is a certain number that, once passed, automatically corrupts police?

If not then why would you condone some officers but not all of them?

Your kind of jumping all over the place here.

I think you missed my point about it being impossible to have laws with nobody to enforce them. This means that Congress and our legal system are now irrelevant.

Are you really comfortable trusting our giant food production or medical technologies to corporations? Do you think they would care more about being honest and fair with you or taking your money?

With no police how will you keep them in check?

Power always corrupts, give a purple sash to a 7 year old and watch human nature turn that darling child into the epitome of tyranny.

I am saying that we don't need police. They do not provide the service that you attribute to them. For instance they do not bust bad food producers.

In some cases, maybe more than I would care to admit to, police may serve a constructive purpose. Therefore, I am not absolutely forbidding them.

Your inclusion of local police in the same sentence as federal legislators is a little disturbing but, I think I know what you mean to say. I have lots more to say about federal law and legislators but, that is another conversation.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Perhaps you can recall the L.A. Riots when law enforcement backed out of the city due to being outnumbered and let people deal with it themselves.

This would be a good idea of what would happen all over society if you took away the threat of arrest or prison time. People would arm themselves to the teeth and shoot first, ask questions later.

The complete breakdown of society would follow. This is no longer the old west where a few hundred people could establish a township on their own and self-govern it. Even then, you had access to laws and either a sheriff in town or a wandering marshal to eventually enforce those laws.

Take that away and why would anyone feel the need to follow laws anymore? Just look at all the crime that happens currently, with laws and at least 36,000 police on active duty at any given time in our nation.

How can you possibly fathom that situation not getting worse if you remove the threat of police action and imprisonment?

What happens if you notice your neighbor molesting his daughter? Are you going to get a posse together and go string him up?

Are you going to have a mock trial with no one there to represent the man?

What if it turns out you were mistaken in what you saw and you killed him when he was innocent?

Are you going to say "ooops" and carry on?



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


Perhaps you can recall the L.A. Riots when law enforcement backed out of the city due to being outnumbered and let people deal with it themselves.

This would be a good idea of what would happen all over society if you took away the threat of arrest or prison time. People would arm themselves to the teeth and shoot first, ask questions later.

The complete breakdown of society would follow. This is no longer the old west where a few hundred people could establish a township on their own and self-govern it. Even then, you had access to laws and either a sheriff in town or a wandering marshal to eventually enforce those laws.

Take that away and why would anyone feel the need to follow laws anymore? Just look at all the crime that happens currently, with laws and at least 36,000 police on active duty at any given time in our nation.

How can you possibly fathom that situation not getting worse if you remove the threat of police action and imprisonment?

What happens if you notice your neighbor molesting his daughter? Are you going to get a posse together and go string him up?

Are you going to have a mock trial with no one there to represent the man?

What if it turns out you were mistaken in what you saw and you killed him when he was innocent?

Are you going to say "ooops" and carry on?

And who geared up south central before retreating?

While it is true that there are always mistakes made in an armed civil society, they are no worse than in a police state (much less violence are much more accountability).

Sometimes neighbors get strung up, it's a mystery to all of us.


Why do you insist on discarding the third branch of our government? The justice system (judicial branch) has nothing to do with police.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Because the judicial system has little to do with law enforcement. They are the recipient of actions taken by law enforcement.

Other than validating their right to exist, by supporting and upholding the laws that come before them, they have no direct say in either their creation or maintenance.

You still can't escape the fact that to have order you must have laws and to have laws you must have a way to enforce them.

Individuals are not going to do the research necessary to ensure that some Wall St. trader is not manipulating the stock market, make the decision that a crime has been made, then go round up some people to go dole out punishment to the man.

How would this even work?

Your theory that police are no longer needed just is not plausible. I can understand your frustration and perhaps a hard look at how they operate and the procedures they follow is necessary but you cannot just get rid of them.

That would be a case of the cure being far worse than the disease.

However, the fact that you have no problem with sometimes stringing up neighbors for wrong reasons makes me think that this point may not sink in.

Perhaps you would to live in pure anarchy as there are many people that do.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Spookybelle
reply to post by greencmp
 


Because the judicial system has little to do with law enforcement. They are the recipient of actions taken by law enforcement.

Other than validating their right to exist, by supporting and upholding the laws that come before them, they have no direct say in either their creation or maintenance.

You still can't escape the fact that to have order you must have laws and to have laws you must have a way to enforce them.

Individuals are not going to do the research necessary to ensure that some Wall St. trader is not manipulating the stock market, make the decision that a crime has been made, then go round up some people to go dole out punishment to the man.

How would this even work?

Your theory that police are no longer needed just is not plausible. I can understand your frustration and perhaps a hard look at how they operate and the procedures they follow is necessary but you cannot just get rid of them.

That would be a case of the cure being far worse than the disease.

However, the fact that you have no problem with sometimes stringing up neighbors for wrong reasons makes me think that this point may not sink in.

Perhaps you would to live in pure anarchy as there are many people that do.

Right, someone breaks into your house and you choose to let him live, you drive him to the courthouse in the morning and Bob's your uncle, what's not to understand?

You know what's illegal? Eating your baby. Do you have an anti-baby-eating officer in your house? Does the absence of that anti-baby-eating officer make you lust for the flesh of your now defenseless baby? Great, now you get it.

Zowie, so now local police are regulating the stock market, we are talking about local police, local police... local. Federal police agencies are a whole other story and while they also need to be minimized, they have different jurisdictions than local police.

Also, I should point out that counties still have sheriffs which is all we used to have and at least they are elected officials.
edit on 18-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


ever heard of vigilante justice?
when the majority of society sees your actions as wrong, they will then enforce a punishment that the whole can agree on.

funny thing is, societies compass on certain issues may change with the times, instead of following laws that 'are on the books' but nobody agrees with, it would be determined in a mob sort of way whether or not your actions deserve punishment or not.

this isn't brain surgery, there are STILL cultures out there that practice such a thing, and crimes are low.

hell, who wants to be potentially beat down by an angry crowd?
I would rather take my chances with an incompetent LEO than a p.o'd crowd of my peers.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


and are you kidding me with this congress and corporations thing?

there is a difference between civil laws and criminal laws.

and there doesn't need to be any police officers to enforce such regulations and what not on businesses. they fine them or shut them down. or they get sued out of existence. simple, no police involved.

you are now the one thats jumping all over the place trying to compare civil law to criminal law.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 

As I said. Statistics can be skewed. And all too often, you can find statistics to match your personal bias. Of course, it's a given that some folks will read and remember only what supports their preconceived notions.


WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality


Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims' civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says


Federal records show the vast majority of police brutality cases referred by investigators are not prosecuted.

There went your stats. But why aren't they being prosecuted? Here's why.

David Burnham, the co-founder of the TRAC database, says prosecutions appear to be increasing, but "more important" are the numbers of cases prosecutors decline.

Last year, 96% of cases referred for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined.

In 2005, 98% were declined, a rate that has remained "extremely high" under every administration dating to President Carter, according to a TRAC report.
The high refusal rates, say Burnham and law enforcement analysts, result in part from the extraordinary difficulty in prosecuting abuse cases. Juries are conditioned to believe cops, and victims' credibility is often challenged.

Source
Gee. Imagine that. Not only do we have a code of silence among police, but prosecutors seldom take these cases because it's too hard to win them. No case. No statistic. And lets not forget the myriad of instances that never get reported. Yet you say...


...and prisons are filled with cops gone bad.

You ought not to make generalized statements that you cannot support with fact. It hurts your credibility.
edit on 10/18/2013 by Klassified because: eta



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I am going to try to stay on topic and not respond to the inevitable cop bashing I receive on this and every other forum.

In my opinion after watching the video I believe the officers acted in the wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.

From what I saw the guy never stepped towards the officers. He didn't appear to be within their "danger zone" of 21 feet. If anything the officers walked towards him closing the gap.

I have been in this same situation and other similar ones numerous times in my career. In a situation where some one has a knife, is not an immediate threat and there are at least two officers on scene, one officer should pull his firearm (lethal force) and the other should pull his taser or other (non lethal) tool. If the person suddenly charges the officers, the one with the less lethal tool should attempt to use it first. If it fails to stop the threat then lethal force is justified. To accomplish this takes great skill. Great skill in not only being able to use your weapon or non lethal system effectively, but also communication and timing between the two officers. It appears that these two didn't have either the skill or knowledge or both.

Another thing the officers could of done was to park their patrol car parallel across the street to make a barrier between them and the guy. Then they could start the conflict resolution/negotiating process. There is no need to rush.

I really don't like being a Monday morning quarterback. However, I do have experience in these types of scenarios. I believed these officers are in the wrong and I would of handled the situation differently.

edit on 18-10-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
LAW ENFORCEMENT is a needed thing. We need them to INFORCE THE LAW. When they arrive at a call these days, as in the one with the mentally handicapped there's no( Accessing the situation). There's an immediate tacticle response in them. They dont ask questions, they dont (talk it out), they immediately assume all involved are out to do them harm. From the kid in the cul-de-sac to the ones standing and watching....they are all the same to LE.

Here in America we have this school program with LE called (School Resource Officer) Posted at the school and he/she is there everyday all day. This is even at the middle school and below middle school level. Why do we need a LE officer at a school that goes to 4th grade? Anybody heard of a 4th grader that's a threat to a teacher or faculty or Le officer? Me neither. IMHO they are there for a more nefarious reason...simple intimidation at the youngest level. As in get you to fear me now, you will damn sure fear me later.

Todays LE is an operation of fear, nationwide, east to west north to south. IMHO the only LE I have any respect for is the Sheriff's Dept. You all do know they are the only LE mentioned in our Constitution, They are the only elected LE in our nation. And they do have alot of power thru the Constitution. Their power within their respected counties supercedes even Federal Law. A Sheriff can lock his county down and arrest any federal agents that try to enter. A Sheriff who is rightfully elected BY THE PEOPLE is protected by our Constitution.

You can respect LE if you want....just don't turn your back on them.





top topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join