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.

Mario wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.

Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.

The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.

In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.

That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/

Why shouldn't a free people own weapons? Do you deny the fundamental right to self-defense or defense of others?

nope nope nope, lets not do that. Hordini you are awesome, but lets please not touch that one.

Indeed redleger. While the relevance of an armed citizenry to this thread is undeniable, let's keep discussion of that limited to how it concerns the police and their actions directly, rather than branching into "America needs to fix its gun laws". Thanks guys

 redleger wrote:
nope nope nope, lets not do that. Hordini you are awesome, but lets please not touch that one.

Thanks. Just trying to call it like I see it.

And no problem motyak, I'll dial it back.


In regards to the original topic, it is indeed tragic. While it is true that the man who was shot probably should have either pulled over immediately, or at the very least stayed in his vehicle, none of that justifies his being shot. The video evidence might show something different, but that seems unlikely at this point.

 Hordini wrote:
What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?

I didn't say they weren't. I said they should be evaluated like everyone else. During an application process they should not be prioritized due to their veteran status (which many departments do), and perhaps if more research bears out that veterans are more susceptible to mental health problems, then they should be even more stringently evaluated before being added to a force.

 Hordini wrote:
And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy?

Not soldiers, cops. I was responding to OgreChubbs comment about US police treating every traffic stop as if it is life threatening. That is problematic to me. Yes, police work is dangerous, and yes some traffic stops result in violence, but I'd wager the majority don't (no data, but feel free to prove me wrong). Treating civilians like they are threats, i.e. enemies, is a wrong minded approach to policing. Add in a veteran's potential for developing service-related mental health problems that could exacerbate this adversarial mindset and that doesn't make for a very good equation in my opinion.

Therefore I wonder if seeking out vets for roles in police is a good idea in the first place.


And with that I am out for the day. Going to job #2.

Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.

I'm reminded of the cop who shot a guy for getting his driving license. Multiple times too I think it was. Thankfully non fatally if I remember correctly. Of course there's too many incidents like this to count. But the training needs to change, as does the attitude.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?

I didn't say they weren't. I said they should be evaluated like everyone else. During an application process they should not be prioritized due to their veteran status (which many departments do), and perhaps if more research bears out that veterans are more susceptible to mental health problems, then they should be even more stringently evaluated before being added to a force.

 Hordini wrote:
And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy?

Not soldiers, cops. I was responding to OgreChubbs comment about US police treating every traffic stop as if it is life threatening. That is problematic to me. Yes, police work is dangerous, and yes some traffic stops result in violence, but I'd wager the majority don't (no data, but feel free to prove me wrong). Treating civilians like they are threats, i.e. enemies, is a wrong minded approach to policing. Add in a veteran's potential for developing service-related mental health problems that could exacerbate this adversarial mindset and that doesn't make for a very good equation in my opinion.

Therefore I wonder if seeking out vets for roles in police is a good idea in the first place.


And with that I am out for the day. Going to job #2.

Whether or not hiring preference is given to vets is irrelevant to this conversation. whether or not Veterans are susceptible to mental health issues precluding them from honorable community service in the form of law enforcement is entirely speculation based on a lack of understanding, and maybe a bit of bias.

Military training teaches handling stressful situations with poise and control. Not going off half cocked just cause your pulse raises and you get a bad spidey sense. Actually because of this, it would make sense that Combat Vets, specifically of the Infantry, Artillery, Combat Engineer and even girly Cav Scouts would make excellent, trainable and mentally collected Police Officers. Your question is based off the falsity that Vets are damaged goods. In fact you pass one daily in all likelihood and don't even know it.

Now disclamer. Arseholes are everywhere and military service does not preclude that either. So linking bad apples to any one demographic without proof is profiling and as many liberals on this site would say, profiling is wrong. So explain why your stance holds any water, and is not akin to a profiling of one group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.

actually you can remain tactically minded, and prepared without treating someone like a threat. In all likelihood, based on our society and gun ownership, every time you pull someone over it has the potential to be deadly, the trick is treating it like a potential bad situation without letting the person you pulled over know it is being treated as such.

Mario wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.

Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.

The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.

In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.

That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/

Abolishment of the 2nd? O.o

First of all, nearly 2/3rd of gun deaths are related to suicides.

So... maybe that's why we don't see that number "terrifying enough" to abolish the 2nd.

What it should do is force us to look into mental health and fund appropriately.

As to this police engagement... we haven't seen the dashcam yet, have we?

damn. Unsure to be proud of my service or fear it. Good thing I am medicated for your all safety. People at work wonder why I have my body armor and ACH by my desk at work.....along with the Centurion helmet, Spartan helmet....Gladiator helmet....Camelspider in a sealed glass case...emperor scorpian in a seal glass case...Fu Dog in my Xmas cactus plant....wwearing a old poor of my Mike Frame Oakly's....

What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.

 motyak wrote:
What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.

I come out and say it then.

Military mindset takes on many forms. All applicants I interview, because of varying backgrounds, can find out that I am very intimidating and project authority with my voice. We, those who post here, that are military can relate and talk at level a lot of you cannot or will not comprehend.
Example
UCMJ action

I was directing my post about Vets to be treated the same as everyone. Yet we are separated from everyone else.
Veteran Recruitment Act
Veteran Employment Oppurtunity Act
Being considered first over civilians for hired if 30% Disabled
Being first over civilians for consideration of job for being a Vet with Campaigns ribbons
etc etc

I got my job with the government by VRA and 30% Disability with VA letter. I was picked up for No Competition for Hire due to my Campaigns Stars
The same applies to Federal LEA's
Same applies to local and state LEA's

Also to back up Jake post. Did you know those who are on Jump Status already have PTSD for combat jumps (practice or real) because we "swallow" our fears?

So the question now is
Do Combat Vets make better LEO's overall over civilian LEO's who are hired off the street. Now for those who do not know. The Hiring Authority of LEO's can ask for a Vet Mental Health records by service or recommend him/her to get a mental eval (current documents mainly being the reason).

Now Motty if you want to know why at times my posts are...interesting. Bear in mind. I might have just taking a Xanax (PTSD)

Edit

Removed the award that has a huge lead over all others. Its one not earned

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

You should try to stop straw manning what is being said. Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact.

I would like to see a source for that.

Here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/03/health/jama-military-mental-health/

That article does not back up your claim at all.

For example:

but Kessler said nearly half of the soldiers who were diagnosed with a mental disorder had it when they enlisted.

Which has nothing to do with combat veterans at all.

And again:

Most suicides occurred back home, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the rate has increased among troops who have never been deployed overseas, Kessler said.

So guys who were combat vets suicide LESS than those who are not.

Then there is this:

Despite concerns about the effects of multiple combat tours and shorter stints at home during more than a decade of war, Kessler said veterans appear to fare better than younger soldiers. Those who suffer from mental health problems are "substantially less likely" to re-enlist, while troops on their second or third hitch are more likely to enjoy Army life.

And up at the beginning of the article

rates of many of these disorders are much higher in soldiers than in civilians.

Many disorders. Of course that means it does not hold true for many others. And it sure as gak does not give enough data to determine which those may be let alone come close to proving "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. "

And this is an article about one study. Not even a link to the study. Your 'fact' that combat vets have higher rates of mental health issues is pretty fething slim on facts.

Now, from what I think is the actual study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4075436/

Pre-enlistment onset disorders were not only more common but also more impairing than disorders with post-enlistment onsets, highlighting the importance of early identification and resilience/prevention interventions. Current mental disorders are much more common among non-deployed U.S. Army soldiers than sociodemographically matched civilians (25.1% vs. 11.6%). The vast majority (76.6%) of such soldiers say their disorders started before enlistment. Nearly 60% of reported soldier suicide attempts were associated with these disorders.

Now, do you have any source to back up your claim that "Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. " And please clarify the 'have higher rates" than... You surely don't mean 'all civilians' because the article you referenced used a study only comparing "sociodemographically matched civilians ".

That was the first result I found while Googling from work.

Here are more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3794703/

A recent report on SUDs in the US Armed Forces (IOM, 2012a) described the present situation as a public health crisis potentially undermining the armed force readiness and psychological fitness. The 2008 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors among Active Duty Military Personnel (Bray et al., 2009) established that almost a half of all Active Duty service members (47%) engaged in binge drinking and 20% in heavy drinking in the past 30 days. Misuse of prescription drugs affected 11% of respondents, 30% reported smoking cigarettes, and 10% were heavy cigarette smokers (one pack or more daily). These alcohol and drug-use-related behaviors continue after the discharge from military, especially among those veterans who are having difficulties with successful reintegration into civilian life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2089086/

Involvement in warfare can have dramatic consequences for the mental health and well-being of military personnel. During the 20th century, US military psychiatrists tried to deal with these consequences while contributing to the military goal of preserving manpower and reducing the debilitating impact of psychiatric syndromes by implementing screening programs to detect factors that predispose individuals to mental disorders, providing early intervention strategies for acute war-related syndromes, and treating long-term psychiatric disability after deployment.

The success of screening has proven disappointing, the effects of treatment near the front lines are unclear, and the results of treatment for chronic postwar syndromes are mixed.

http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA12-4670/SMA12-4670.pdf

Although the majority of veterans who return from
Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a behavioral health
condition and have not experienced a traumatic brain
injury,3
all veterans experience a period of readjustment
as they reintegrate into life with family, friends, and
community. The veterans’ juggling of military and
family responsibilities, reintegration into civilian life in
the United States after living in unfamiliar settings, and
processing exposure to combat may contribute to problems
for veterans themselves, as well as their spouses and
family members.4, 5 Behaviors needed to survive in a war
zone, such as maintaining a constant state of alertness,
may initially translate into troublesome behaviors in
civilian life, such as feeling edgy or jumpy and being
easily startled.

Is that good material for a police officer? I don't think it is. I don't want jumpy, trigger happy people in law enforcement.

My point is, these factors should be looked at. Veterans, especially combat veterans, should not be given the preferential treatment for hiring that they currently get if these other factors could be contributing to the police on civilian violence.

My point is you made a specific claim about combat vets, and have yet to back it up. Don't make claims you can't back up.

No, that wasn't remotely what you said in your post. If you had posted that, I wouldn't have said anything. Instead you said this

 Jihadin wrote:
damn. Unsure to be proud of my service or fear it. Good thing I am medicated for your all safety. People at work wonder why I have my body armor and ACH by my desk at work.....along with the Centurion helmet, Spartan helmet....Gladiator helmet....Camelspider in a sealed glass case...emperor scorpian in a seal glass case...Fu Dog in my Xmas cactus plant....wwearing a old poor of my Mike Frame Oakly's....

Something something-medication something something-body armour something something-helmet something something-camelspider-scorpian-cactus-Oakly's.

If that post had been on topic/had substance like your follow up post, I wouldn't have commented like I did.

 motyak wrote:
What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.

What he said, exactly, was:

Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact.

And until he can come up with actual sources, I'm calling him out on it.

So far, nothing he has provided backs that up.

Mario wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.

Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.

The second amendment and the USA's love for guns is part of the problem too but nobody wants to touch that. From the Guardian: By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years (they also have all kinds of stats here). Here's another article (that links to more information and stats) that tries to explain why the rate of fatal police shootings is so much higher in the US.

In the USA you get about 3.4 annual fatal police shootings per million residents while european countries top at 0.2 and only get lower. That's more than one order of magnitude in difference and from what I have read, I don't think just changing some stuff about police training or how this "problem" gets handled when it happens will solve this. Australia, more or less, banned guns when they were fed up with their shootings and it worked by overall lowering gun fatalities.

That's just doesn't seem to be an option in the US. I don't know what number of yearly gun deaths (police or otherwise) would be needed for the US to even start thinking about abolishing the second amendment. I'm not talking about some NYT article or twitter moment but actual and widespread consideration from the government. :/

Alcohol related deaths in the U.S. outnumber gun related homicides 8 to 1. If the object were to save lives, why don't the people decrying all the firearms deaths put the same energy into campaigning against distillers and Brewers?

 CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:
What you could do is try and post coherently and on topic. The user has already said that he doesn't mean "everyone be afraid of vets in all walks of life because they'll snap and kill you", and barely literate posts building on 'winning' that point add nothing to the on topic discussion.

What he said, exactly, was:

Combat veterans have higher rates of mental health issues. That is not opinion, that is fact.

And until he can come up with actual sources, I'm calling him out on it.

So far, nothing he has provided backs that up.

Jake and me are tracking the same Tango Motty.....I hate assuming....but I am going to assume....you just started on this page....(?)

Edit

Replaced "Came" with "Started"

I understood everything he said as well. Its like we speak a different language. My M frames are sitting right here next to me at the SD desk.

I think we need a Mod with some military background......oh...SD is Staff Duty...24 hrs duty manning the Bat Phone and doing Security Checks of unit areas every hour on the hour till 0900 the next day (0900 - 0900)

 Jihadin wrote:
I think we need a Mod with some military background......oh...SD is Staff Duty...24 hrs duty manning the Bat Phone and doing Security Checks of unit areas every hour on the hour till 0900 the next day (0900 - 0900)

This one is 0600-0600 but otherwise yep, same shizzle. And a mod with any military background would probably not be allowed. IDK if you have ever noticed a trend with allowing some to say whatever, and others censured pretty quickly. I digress though. Seems like we need our own DV thread. (Dysfunctional Veteran) Then maybe we can speak our language without the butthurt flowing.

There are multiple mods who have served in different nations armed forces. But that is hardly on topic for this thread, so let's reel that back and try and salvage something from this, thanks

Prestor Jon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The easiest way to prevent police shootings of civilians is to mandate that DAs charge officers to the fullest extent of the law. If every police shooting starts out with a Murder 1 indictment, that changes the entire force calculus.

DAs should indict on whatever charges are actually supported by the evidence found by the state mandated investigations of every officer involved shooting.

The DA in Baltimore leveled a whole lot of very severe charges and they all got tossed out by a judge due to lack of evidence so improperly charging cops is an unethical waste of time.

In the uk, when a cop shoots someone they are automatically suspended pending a full investigation. I'm not sure if that'd work in thus as we treat shooting as an absolute last resort

That is normal procedure here, when there is a shooting. Well that is what should take place anyway.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.

I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

Herzlos wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.

I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

Just to be fair, our media is pretty much garbage. There are plenty of LEOs out there doing great things for and with the communities they serve. But in America all you will see are the bad things, thus perpetuating this attitude of an us vs them mentality everyone seems to think all American LEOs have. I have had my run ins in my younger days, and came out unscathed because I knew to shut up, say yes sir, and in the end, I learned my lesson. There are many, even here who would have you believe its a literal warzone across the states, but its really not. Its localized and although there are bad things happening, its not as widespread as they would have you believe. The thing is, we just need to tighten up on the causes of these situations and tragedies/crimes and come up with solutions.

In fact you're right, I've seen a few things on social media about US cops being good guys, buying people groceries, cooking them dinner, helping them with shoelaces and stuff.

Our media is pretty garbage too.

There does seem to be a prevailing theme of a Them Vs Us when it comes to US law enforcement, from an outsiders POV.
I've never had any direct interaction with the US police.

Herzlos wrote:


In the uk, when a cop shoots someone they are automatically suspended pending a full investigation. I'm not sure if that'd work in thus as we treat shooting as an absolute last resort

And the cop in this case is suspended (on administrative leave) pending the investigation as well. Honestly that seems to always be the case though I'm sure someone will find an article were the cop was not put on administrative leave...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

Here is a video of my brother, a Houston cop who does a lot of community outreach:





Not too violent. Actually pretty boring. But he did get on their local news.

That video should be rated R CptJake, for extreme violence.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.

Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.

Actually, cross training with other police forces would be awesome. I would love to see some joint exercises/development over here. Problem is, the tinfoil crowd would go bonkers about "foreign police" coming in black helicopters, NWO, etc.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That's the main problem right there. If that's their idea of good training, treating everyone as a hostile who needs to be shot at the slightest provocation then they're idiots.

That and the 'respect mah authority' mentality a lot of them have too. I've seen the YouTube videos. Thuggish power tripping scumbags in uniform.

Wait, there are some bad videos on YouTube, so we obviously have an epidemic? And this is the problem with bad media and an uninformed audience.... Try looking at the actual numbers sometime. The rate of shootings isn't anywhere where the media is reporting and US police violence seems to be at a low (it was actually much worse in the 60s and 70s), matching the decline in crime generally. The fact that departments are adopting things like bodycams is an indicator that they probably don't care for such illegal activity. There is certainly no reason not to continue addressing these issues and severely punishing those officers that abuse their position, but mischaracterizing normal policing as some sort of occupation just indicates a personal axe to grind. The one figure that has climbed remarkably since all this overblown hype is violence towards officers.

So, if police acts of violence have been in steady decline but media reports have sensationalized cases and there is now a stark uptick in violence against LEOs, what does that indicate?

 jmurph wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Maybe with all these shootings they should have outside help to help regulate things. Pick up the laws and enforcement rules for the U.K., CANADA, IRELAND, SCOTTLAND RUSSIA.

Some outside help may be needed to help sort these things out. Find the laws and training that help enable these type of things by finding what laws are vastly different then those of the countries with far less racial shootings and police shootings.

Actually, cross training with other police forces would be awesome. I would love to see some joint exercises/development over here. Problem is, the tinfoil crowd would go bonkers about "foreign police" coming in black helicopters, NWO, etc.

Many large police forces cross train with others (to include UK, Canadian and other international police forces) and even send liaison officers to each other.