Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience. Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
.

I've lived in placed with murder rates similar to what you lay out above (NYC during the crack epidemic) and despite that I still don't see the justification for choking a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes. Are you trying to say that high crime justifies police brutality? Cause that's totally what your argument comes across as.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience.

That incredibly ironic coming from the guy, who a year ago, swore that Ebola was the greatest threat to America.

Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.

Yeah dude, I'm sure you've got some stories to tell. By the way, how is your friend's mom that caught Ebola in Texas?

As for the question about how to treat people actively engaged in a crime, well I've seen large crowds literally turn a blind eye while a woman was being beaten in the public square in front of Oakland City Hall. The world is a totally fked up place.

That's called the bystander effect.

Look brother, no offense here.....but have you ever actually dealt with the social issues you are talking about?

Do you? Based on all of the obviously lies you've told in other threads, I doubt it.

Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.

Cops are civilians and they aren't our masters. High crime doesn't justify brutality.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


At the end of the day, cops are CIVILIANS. The model for law enforcement should be closer to that of a social worker.

Look brother, no offense here.....but have you ever actually dealt with the social issues you are talking about?

Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.

Not sure what social issue you're talking about, but the world isn't anything like Robocop. I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.

How can you expect anyone to respect cops given the current model? At best, they generate revenue for the community by digging into the pockets of hard-working people with real productive careers. At worst, they assault and murder people. There's very little 'getting your cat out of a tree' these days. Nowadays, a SWAT team kicks the door to the wrong house, shoots your Corgi and sends you a bill for the ammo.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.

Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.

Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.

That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:

https://vine.co/v/eOqeXtL9Yxz

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.

Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.

Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.

Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.

Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.

Sorry, having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Ouze wrote:
Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.

That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:

https://vine.co/v/eOqeXtL9Yxz

WTF was that?

Ouze wrote:
Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.
\

And I think this is key. I've a few friends in law enforcement, and based on conversations with them, I get more range time than many of them do. From my understanding, in many departments the firearm qualifications are pretty basic (15 hours of training a year) and for the most part if they want to train outside of the designated training sessions, they have to pay for their own ammunition.

And that 15 hours includes includes situational drilling.

To me, that just doesn't seem like nearly enough.

More training is always good but I'm not sure making, or pretending to make, police forces into some sort of military-light force is a very good idea. Their roles are different and how they approach situations is also different.

 Ahtman wrote:
More training is always good but I'm not sure making, or pretending to make, police forces into some sort of military-light force is a very good idea. Their roles are different and how they approach situations is also different.

I think he was trying to say that more training was necessary to teach officers how and when to use lethal force and not how to become marksmen.

Firearm training varies wildly between departments, but most recreational shooters will get more range time a year than just about any department mandates. Firearms training for some large police forces, particularly the NYPD, often tends to be abysmal or almost nonexistent after leaving the academy for most officers.

The other issue however is that many are trained to shoot way too early, with a bar for what constitutes a "threat" so low it's mind boggling (and would land any non-police shooter a felony prison sentence), and in general a system that approves of that practice.

Yeah, we're talking about 2 different problems. What Cincy is describing is why police officers are some famously terrible shots (which is a problem) and what I was describing was their willingness to threaten and use lethal force when it's inappropriate (which is also a problem).

It's easy to say, in retrospect, that this officer should have used deadly force. Unfortunately, if he had, we'd likely be seeing him on the news with another "cop shoots unarmed black man" headline. Doesn't seem to be a middle ground right now.

I don't buy it actually. He got his butt kicked and now he is making an excuse.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Okay, i concede the neutralizing shot thing. Probably far too difficult in the heat of the moment. Honestly its probably video games more than hollywood that made me think that was valid.

But why not taze him or pull out the mace?

Just to be clear, i think it's awful this man went through this. No one should have to feel afraid to defend themselves.

In canada, it's a few months of training and a physical test to be an RCMP officer, and i think more to be a city policeman. Their physical test is much harder also I believe.

Well I am sure you are well gone with the thread, and its completely off topic from what I did read, but I wanted to just add in some perspective.

In my experience, detectives, who this guy was, tend not to wear tazers and mace. They wear nicer clothes and the yellow tazer really clashes with their ties. (or shoes, or w.e its a joke).

Tazers really aren't as great as the movies and TV make them out to be. They don't always work.

Mace is more to get you a few more seconds to clear your firearm from your holster to use it in a fight. Mace won't keep people from hurting you, just blinds everyone, IF it even effects the person.

Depending on how far away the perp was from the cop, they was no way he could have cleared a tazer or mace from his belt if he even had one. Wouldn't be enough time to get the firearm out either.

Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.

I call bs.

1. Only active duty military can say they aren't civilians. They need to quit if they say they are.
2. Blah blah on the danger. Lived in where there were shootings every day. Your argument holds nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience. Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
.

I've lived in placed with murder rates similar to what you lay out above (NYC during the crack epidemic) and despite that I still don't see the justification for choking a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes. Are you trying to say that high crime justifies police brutality? Cause that's totally what your argument comes across as.

You said it better than I.

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, we're talking about 2 different problems. What Cincy is describing is why police officers are some famously terrible shots (which is a problem) and what I was describing was their willingness to threaten and use lethal force when it's inappropriate (which is also a problem).

I'd argue some of that would come from the situational drilling I mentioned as well.

It's very easy to say, "you only escalate to use of a firearm when XYZ happens." It's much different when there's some practical drilling associated with it that an officer can rely on.

The militarization of the police isn't want we want, obviously, but I don't think ensuring they can hit what they're firing at while the adrenaline is pumping is a bad thing. Situational and practical drilling (I've only taken one class myself, so I'm hardly an expert) can, I think, only help with that, too.

Of course, all of these ideas are predicated on the usual question:

"Who's paying for it?"

If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.

Not to mention there would be some cost savings from a lesser number of wrongful shooting/wrongful death payouts. I feel like nearly $100 million a year would cover a lot of training.

Ouze wrote:
If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.

Not to mention there would be some cost savings from a lesser number of wrongful shooting/wrongful death payouts. I feel like nearly $100 million a year would cover a lot of training.

training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.

This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.

If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.

 kronk wrote:

Ouze wrote:
Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.

That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:

https://vine.co/v/eOqeXtL9Yxz

WTF was that?

As I remember the officer tripped and turned it into a roll. Of course him running like a nutter causing him to trip so hard he had to roll to fix it...

That was a Dallas cop. I really liked his socks.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.

Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.

Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.

Sorry, having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Sorry, struggling to compose my thoughts. Ignore my post for the time being.

 Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.

Not to mention there would be some cost savings from a lesser number of wrongful shooting/wrongful death payouts. I feel like nearly $100 million a year would cover a lot of training.

training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.

This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.

If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.

Frazzled channeling Confucius makes a good point here.

Ancient Confucius say "beer me bro!"

 Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.

Not to mention there would be some cost savings from a lesser number of wrongful shooting/wrongful death payouts. I feel like nearly $100 million a year would cover a lot of training.

training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.

This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.

If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.

You're totally right, yeah. I have to wonder if cops wouldn't be a little less triggerhappy if those lawsuit payouts came out of their pension funds.

If you really want to see someone scramble take it out of the union dues.

Didn't SCOTUS rule recently on member dues being a form of political speech?

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't SCOTUS rule recently on member dues being a form of political speech?

They agreed to take a case that's in that neighborhood, but they have not yet heard it; it's next term.


If that's not the case you meant then I'm not familiar with what you're referring to.

That's the one

Part of the problem is that the training manuals for police officers, often outsourced to one of very few companies in the world writing them by various municipalities, think that every officer lives and works in Detroit during Mad Max times.