NYPD’s Cop Union: ‘We Have Become a Wartime Police Department’ after Two Officers Slain

If I were in the cop business right now, I'd walk off the job. A taste of Ferguson or Cleveland or NYC without any cops might be an eye-opener.

If it truly is a war, expect collateral damage, no media coverage, no cameras and no recourse if injured or killed by the invading force.

Maybe this is what the fema camps are for...prisoners of war.

i suspect if they are looking for a war against the people they may just get what they want.....and it will not end well

originally posted by: lynxpilot
If I were in the cop business right now, I'd walk off the job. A taste of Ferguson or Cleveland or NYC without any cops might be an eye-opener.

Thats how the beginning of the original movie robocop starts.

Life, art, art, life. Hard to tell anymore which is mimicking which.

a reply to: lynxpilot

They can't. Law enforcement has a clause in their contract that states they're a vital service and, therefore, they can't walk off the job or strike.

originally posted by: suz62
a reply to: lynxpilot

They can't. Law enforcement has a clause in their contract that states they're a vital service and, therefore, they can't walk off the job or strike.

In a time of war do you really think contracts, agreements, etc. will have any meaning?
I don't think you really understand the implications of LEOs declaring war on the citizens.

a reply to: olaru12

In a time of war do you really think contracts, agreements, etc. will have any meaning?

Refer to hurricane Katrina and the police actions or lack there of.

After reading all of the posts on this thread I feel most of you have missed the intent and meaning of what the NYPD has said. You have fallen for the rhetoric and missed the meaning. What has been said in between the lines is that the police will now be going into more of a shell. The police will not be putting themselves at risk.

Example 1: Your partner is physically and mentally abusive towards you. The police would have arrested that person no matter what. Now, you may expect that the police are not going to be as involved and you may be left with the problem of dealing with that abusive person by YOURSELF.

Example 2: You have a drunk and abusive neighbor. Maybe they shoot of guns. Do you expect the police to put them in harms way to protect you? Not going to be as quick to respond to these types of calls.

So what is going to happen when the police wait and people feel unsafe? People will complain that the police don't do enough. The police will respond that they are not being well enough supported. Politicians and the public will start supporting bond issues to greater fund the police for more equipment and personnel. This incident and political responses are readying the scene for more police with heavier equipment.

A big question to ask yourself. Do you want a drug dealer, a bully, an abuser, a loud mouth, etc., etc. in YOUR neighborhood? Well if you don't you better be ready to pay more for more prepared police.

Realize not everyone is supporting the protesters. More people are starting to see them as bullies who only riot. That may not be true but that is becoming the perception in some communities. Remember if you scare someone you are likely to make them a firm supporter of the police and ANY tactic that ensures THIER safety.

originally posted by: suz62
a reply to: lynxpilot

They can't. Law enforcement has a clause in their contract that states they're a vital service and, therefore, they can't walk off the job or strike.

First rule of war?

There are no rules.

Even before this point the police have not really followed their own rules very closely.

Peace

originally posted by: feldercarb
After reading all of the posts on this thread I feel most of you have missed the intent and meaning of what the NYPD has said. You have fallen for the rhetoric and missed the meaning. What has been said in between the lines is that the police will now be going into more of a shell. The police will not be putting themselves at risk.

Example 1: Your partner is physically and mentally abusive towards you. The police would have arrested that person no matter what. Now, you may expect that the police are not going to be as involved and you may be left with the problem of dealing with that abusive person by YOURSELF.

Example 2: You have a drunk and abusive neighbor. Maybe they shoot of guns. Do you expect the police to put them in harms way to protect you? Not going to be as quick to respond to these types of calls.

So what is going to happen when the police wait and people feel unsafe? People will complain that the police don't do enough. The police will respond that they are not being well enough supported. Politicians and the public will start supporting bond issues to greater fund the police for more equipment and personnel. This incident and political responses are readying the scene for more police with heavier equipment.

A big question to ask yourself. Do you want a drug dealer, a bully, an abuser, a loud mouth, etc., etc. in YOUR neighborhood? Well if you don't you better be ready to pay more for more prepared police.

Realize not everyone is supporting the protesters. More people are starting to see them as bullies who only riot. That may not be true but that is becoming the perception in some communities. Remember if you scare someone you are likely to make them a firm supporter of the police and ANY tactic that ensures THIER safety.

Great point that many may have missed.

Problem...Reaction...Solution...at the very core.

Peace

Are they admitting openly what we already know? That not all enforcement actions and arrests are “absolutely necessary” to begin with?

It’s too bad we live in a country where that isn’t the rule all the time. Unless I’m mistaken, I thought it was supposed to be. Why isn’t it??

Maybe this war is actually more of a truce.

a reply to: feldercarb

" Do you want a drug dealer, a bully, an abuser, a loud mouth, etc., etc. in YOUR neighborhood? "

I don't follow. What do police have to do with it?

I think you answered that question in a previous paragraph. I mean, those elements exist in neighborhoods with police. Are you suggesting these elements wouldn't exist, if we give police Abrams tanks?

" you may be left with the problem of dealing with that abusive person by YOURSELF. "

Good time to stay well-armed. If state or local law prevents it, it's unconstitutional, so good time to fight state or local laws.

a reply to: GodEmperor

No what I am saying is that if you don't want those elements in the your neighborhood you will begin to call for more police. The police are saying they will need more equipment, more personnel, stricter laws, more latitude to do their job. To remove those elements from you neighborhood you will begin to support those requests from the police. Things will swing back toward unconditional support for the police so that your neighborhood is safe. For every ying there is a yang.

a reply to: th2356

No, they just have soldiers beheaded in the streets.

First people complain about how the police do their jobs. Then people complain when the police get defensive about an ambush of police officers.

Make up your damn minds.

No matter what they do they won't please you.

I'm beginning to feel some people don't deserve protection.

a reply to: olaru12

And I think you're blowing this comment way out of proportion.

originally posted by: feldercarb
After reading all of the posts on this thread I feel most of you have missed the intent and meaning of what the NYPD has said. You have fallen for the rhetoric and missed the meaning. What has been said in between the lines is that the police will now be going into more of a shell. The police will not be putting themselves at risk.

Example 1: Your partner is physically and mentally abusive towards you. The police would have arrested that person no matter what. Now, you may expect that the police are not going to be as involved and you may be left with the problem of dealing with that abusive person by YOURSELF.

Example 2: You have a drunk and abusive neighbor. Maybe they shoot of guns. Do you expect the police to put them in harms way to protect you? Not going to be as quick to respond to these types of calls.

So what is going to happen when the police wait and people feel unsafe? People will complain that the police don't do enough. The police will respond that they are not being well enough supported. Politicians and the public will start supporting bond issues to greater fund the police for more equipment and personnel. This incident and political responses are readying the scene for more police with heavier equipment.

A big question to ask yourself. Do you want a drug dealer, a bully, an abuser, a loud mouth, etc., etc. in YOUR neighborhood? Well if you don't you better be ready to pay more for more prepared police.

Realize not everyone is supporting the protesters. More people are starting to see them as bullies who only riot. That may not be true but that is becoming the perception in some communities. Remember if you scare someone you are likely to make them a firm supporter of the police and ANY tactic that ensures THIER safety.

Then cut off the Police, and put a new organization in it's place.

One with laws that won't help officers that are abusing their power.

It just takes more then 50-70% of the country to say yes.

The police can't remain untouchable if the police no longer exist.
Meaning, If you tear down the walls of this organization and put up a better one. Any former laws would be null in void because the old organization would be non existant. Or at least without public funding. They can act like mercinaries at that point, With the real law enforcers would be taking them down.

No one said we had to get rid of law enforcement.

We can reform it. Hell we can reform anything but the constitutions.

We could reform the federal system too. Rename everything. All the laws. To desolve these corrupt bastards.