Author Topic: (Read 3157 times)

Greg · « **Reply #15 on:** November 10, 2004, 04:09:23 PM »

I generally jump into online discussions about police use of force issues because most online people are the types to first assume that any use of force that makes the news was a case of cops out of control. Most news clips about police shootings or other uses of force are very brief and don't exactly paint a detailed picture. Many of them seem to be biased against the cops because it makes better news to have Rodney King type crap than Joe Lawman saves the day. People on most of the sites I frequent jump on these things just like they do with Bush anytime he does anything. That is why I tend to side with the cops in most of these situations and if the use of force review board says that the cop(s) were ok, then I tend to believe them. They have all the details which we almost never get.

Of course, the other side of that is that I don't think that we should not question police. I agree that people with unquestioned authority are very scary. I just don't think they are nearly as common as most people (online at least) seem to believe. Most people I've heard online seem to think that every other cop lives to go to riots and hit protesters with batons.

And as far as selection goes, of course there is no way for a fair system to weed out the "dorks" that get through. However, recruiting only big, mean, bouncer-type guys to be cops doesn't work that well. Of course they are the types needed for swat teams and riots, but in most other police situations, a smart person with a level head and some tact will do much more good than a person with huge biceps and a bad attitude.

yellowmonkey · « **Reply #16 on:** November 10, 2004, 07:02:10 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by KenCasper
 I'd been staying outa this after my first comment, BUT...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Quality over quantity is a better policy than they have now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just curious if you realize what that would mean. I can imagine the Call...
Dispatcher "Hello 911 how can I help you?"
Victimized Citizen "umm yes, there's someone breaking into my house!"
Dispatacher "well sir I'm sorry but it will be 2 days before we can have an officer over, can you get the burglar to sit till the officer shows up?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As opposed to, "Well sir, we can send someone over right away, but you should know, she is a 4'8", weighs 85 lbs., and has a tendency to open fire on anyone running in her direction. She won't be respected by any criminal because of her sex and weight, and the only authority she has besides a badge, is a gun. No dedicated criminal would surrender."

No police officer is perfect, but we can do better.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Also who determins quality? You have stated you believe we should have HUGE brawny guys only as cops, so that they could "physically restrain" instead of shooting bad guys. Is that the standard of quality you want?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Like I said. The force Police should be predominantly male (just becasue men get more respect and have more upper body strength). They should be at least somwehat weighty, and they should be well trained and tested in the various tools and skills of the trade (firearms, batons, hand-to-hand, tactical driving, etc.). Nobody here on earth is ever going to come up with perfect standards, but there are better ones.

I guess it kind of goes back to quality vs quantity. Both sides have thier disadvantages.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Also you realize that you are more likely to injure and thus be sued when there is physical contact than during an officer involved shooting? Yes maybe that is because more physical altercations happen, but it happens. The reason many departments are trying to implament non-leathal or less than leathal weapons is it is less dangerious for both the officers and the "suspects" they are trying to detain.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Right, officers should do the wrong thing so that they don't get sued. All I can say about that is that there are too many idiot judges, and too many people are willing to give in to the fear of appearing before an idiot judge.

Also, Hand-to-hand combat is completely different that non-lethat/ less than lethal weapons. I'm all for tasers and what not, but there comes a time when you need to get into it with your hands and feet. Officers need to be able to employ both means to deal with a situation. It's better for an officer to be sued than someone unnecessarily killed. You can't rely 100% on your weapons/ gear.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Yes I realize it is sad to see an officer shoot a suspect, but by and large most officers I've met never think they will ever have to use "that" side arm, it is just a tool for "scareing the bad guy" into co-operation, and a deadly tool as a last resort. That said I would rather see a dead CRIMINAL over a dead officer that I've spent thousands of Tax dollars to train anyday. Yes there have been cases of cops MURDERING people, but thankfully they were caught by the review boards which are there for that reason.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, a sidearm is a great tool for "scaring a suspect", but once you pull that sidearm out, there is a 99.999% greater chance that it will be discharged than when it was in the holster. There are other ways to intimidate a suspect that doesn't yeild to authority, namely by having a few burly, male officers that the suspect would have to get through. Tasers are great too, hopefully they will replace sidearms in select, close quarters situations, but once again, they are only so reliable.

I think my neighbor told me that you have to have at least 16 feet between you and the suspect for you to have time to de-holster your sidearm/ taser. When an officer has someone coming at them, they often don't have time to respond with a sidearm, and when they do, it is often uncontrolled "panic" fire which can lead to unintentional victems.

The necesities for each situation are different, but it's better to have all the bases covered.

And a dead criminal is not better than a dead cop.
One is not more guilty than the other (according to my philisophical ideals, they are both guilty of sinning against God and deserve death) they simply have made different decisions and preformed different actions. Different decisions have different consequences. It is by God's will that one should die, not ours. If by God's will, the officer kills the criminal in a firefight, so be it, it could not have been otherwise. While it may seem more just that the criminal dies, all is equal in death. In death a man is responsible for his actions, and there he will be judged for his inequities.

Basically what I'm saying is that God will be the judge of who is better off dead. God's justice is the only justice.

Does anybody remember the original topic? [

]

Do I have to make everything about religion!? [

]

leadmagnet · « **Reply #17 on:** November 10, 2004, 07:29:58 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by USMC-Greg
 And as far as selection goes, of course there is no way for a fair system to weed out the "dorks" that get through. However, recruiting only big, mean, bouncer-type guys to be cops doesn't work that well. Of course they are the types needed for swat teams and riots, but in most other police situations..."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Heheh, dude. You have the totally wrong impression of what it takes to do swat sh!t. The last thing you want on your team is the "big, mean, bouncer-type" if all they're packin is walnut sized brains.

Lead

delta_echo · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2004, 09:43:51 PM »

So, yellowmonkey, what should we do to rectify the situation (assume you have complete power)?

busta_cap · « **Reply #19 on:** November 10, 2004, 10:15:55 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As opposed to, "Well sir, we can send someone over right away, but you should know, she is a 4'8", weighs 85 lbs., and has a tendency to open fire on anyone running in her direction. She won't be respected by any criminal because of her sex and weight, and the only authority she has besides a badge, is a gun. No dedicated criminal would surrender."

No police officer is perfect, but we can do better.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can't speak for all criminals, neither can you so stop doing it. First of all, your being very one-sided and pigheaded. Second, no one that is in a dangerous or life threatening situation that calls 911 will care what the hell you say about the police except when they are gonna get there. And if your saying you would surrender to the business end of a Glock 23 then you must be stupid(or your a dedicated criminal[

])

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Like I said. The force Police should be predominantly male (just becasue men get more respect and have more upper body strength). They should be at least somwehat weighty, and they should be well trained and tested in the various tools and skills of the trade (firearms, batons, hand-to-hand, tactical driving, etc.). Nobody here on earth is ever going to come up with perfect standards, but there are better ones.

I guess it kind of goes back to quality vs quantity. Both sides have thier disadvantages.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ok so now your being sexist too eh? I've known and seen quite a few of women who could kick most grown men's asses if need be. I sometimes give the man an advantage in the back of my head because that is what we always think of...the man being stronger than the woman. And when it comes down to it, she could be 1/3 his size and strength and take him down with the proper tactics. HOWEVER there comes a time where tactics seem to blank your head and you can't remember a damn thing; therefore brute force and strength is needed. I think if our police forces had to meet your standards, honestly.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, a sidearm is a great tool for "scaring a suspect", but once you pull that sidearm out, there is a 99.999% greater chance that it will be discharged than when it was in the holster. There are other ways to intimidate a suspect that doesn't yeild to authority, namely by having a few burly, male officers that the suspect would have to get through. Tasers are great too, hopefully they will replace sidearms in select, close quarters situations, but once again, they are only so reliable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think if I head a Glock pointed at me, id think twice about whatever I was doing. And where did this 99.999% greater chance statistic come from? I want to see proof...Not you telling us something thats 100% untrue[

]. So I will have to disagree with you about that one for the time being. As burly as your cops may be, there no use with a 9mm slug in their head now are they? So i guess if they just stand there and look mean and flex their muscles the "thug" will drop his 9(not 6) and decide not to shoot them? Tasers will NEVER replace any sidearm, but sidearms will become somewhat like taser where they have "stun" and "kill" modes just like the Handguns with several barrels with several types of projectiles being developed as we speak.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think my neighbor told me that you have to have at least 16 feet between you and the suspect for you to have time to de-holster your sidearm/ taser.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again, it would be nice to have real proof or legibility in this claim. Some of what I hear makes it sound like this woman is talking out of her ass for the most part. How old is she by the way?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And a dead criminal is not better than a dead cop.
One is not more guilty than the other (according to my philisophical ideals, they are both guilty of sinning against God and deserve death) they simply have made different decisions and preformed different actions. Different decisions have different consequences. It is by God's will that one should die, not ours. If by God's will, the officer kills the criminal in a firefight, so be it, it could not have been otherwise. While it may seem more just that the criminal dies, all is equal in death. In death a man is responsible for his actions, and there he will be judged for his inequities.

Basically what I'm saying is that God will be the judge of who is better off dead. God's justice is the only justice.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Im really against debating about religion, just because its a huge pain in the ass. And religion and God can and is interpreted in as many ways as you can eat Turkey! Same goes with the bible. Everything with religion can be manipulated and it seems nothing is pure anymore. I do believe that it is a sin to kill another human being, BUT that sin can be forgiven, and i do think there is a difference between killing someone in self defense and just killing...Because if a cop just stood there and let himself be killed...and another and another eventually every cop will die..Unless someone shoots this guy. So you just have a bunch of dead people..

EDIT: Another thing, you are contradicting your own arguements by saying we should tell the people on the 911 calls about the officers, well there all big burly men so why will it matter? Im sure theres no shortage of the meatheads so why don't I run down to the gym and tell them to become cops so when they see a criminal they just break his arm before they put him in jail..soun good?

Greg · « **Reply #20 on:** November 10, 2004, 10:36:14 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leadmagnet
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by USMC-Greg
 And as far as selection goes, of course there is no way for a fair system to weed out the "dorks" that get through. However, recruiting only big, mean, bouncer-type guys to be cops doesn't work that well. Of course they are the types needed for swat teams and riots, but in most other police situations..."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Heheh, dude. You have the totally wrong impression of what it takes to do swat sh!t. The last thing you want on your team is the "big, mean, bouncer-type" if all they're packin is walnut sized brains.

Lead
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Um. I guess I didnt think that last part of the sentence through. What I meant was... Monkey seems to want cops to be like most bouncers are. The SWAT/Riot part came to my mind after that. I meant that these physical attributes are important for those types of roles, but not so much for daily patrol type stuff. Of course SWAT guys need to have a ton of other things like brainpower and speed. (I was mostly thinking of the tactical guys from the jail that I dealt with. They are like bouncers. Those guys are freakin scary even if completely unarmed! [:O])

And Monkey: Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? You are sounding like a kuro5hin troll.[

]

yellowmonkey · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2004, 01:21:33 AM »

First, Busta I'm not sexist because I think that men can almost surely perform a job better than women, I'm just not ignorant enough to be blind to the facts.

When someone calls the cops they expect 2 things: First, to have the situation resolved without any harm coming to them, thier friends/ family, or property. Second they expect a certian degree of professionalism. The situation should be resolved in a professional manner, without excess incident.

I'm not excessivly biased against cops, and if you question my information, go find some contrary evidence and show it to me... prove me wrong. I probably don't know a thousandth of what there is to know about being a cop, but I believe that what I have said so far is relevant.

Now... if I was powerful enough to make changes to local law enforcement here is what I would do:

1. Not only would I have police do periodic qualification tests for previous training (which they do now), but I would have them continuously re-training and drilling at least for 4-5 days a month.

2. I would increase police pay.

3. I would make physical standards much harsher.
-Police officers would have to maintain higher levels of physical strength, especially in the upper body.
-I would require them to do weekly cardiovascular excercise (you could do it on your re-training days).

4. I would require all officers who would activly be involved dangerous situations to be males. (Male officers get more respect, have higher levels of strength, and show more ability to logically reason through tactically challenging situations.)

5. Female officers could retain less dangerous and physically demanding jobs such as: training, logistical support, maintainence, making and handling of reports, education, administration, and many other jobs that don't require physical aggression in a hostile situation.

6. Increase benefits for officers injured or killed in the line of duty.

7. Increase the number of K9 units on the beat.

8. Increase training time to include more tactically based training (more hand-to-hand, physical training, and more CQB training).
And there are probably some more that I can't think of right off the top of my head.

I think what bothers most people is that I believe women have no place in "fighting" as it were. Men and women have roles to fill, and are created differently to accomplish thier individual different tasks. Men are made to fight, to work, and to run the world. Women are made support men, not to do the work of men. You want to know why...? Genesis 2, my friends. That's where I get what I believe, and while there may be infinite translations, there is only one correct one.

So where do I get this stuff (I guess your talking about all that stuff I said about who deserves to die)? It's just what I believe. I guess I'm too immersed in the idea of God being all powerful for most people, but it's what I believe to be true and I can back it up. [

]

leadmagnet · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2004, 10:47:02 AM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
 Men are made to fight, to work, and to run the world. Women are made support men, not to do the work of men. You want to know why...? Genesis 2, my friends. That's where I get what I believe, and while there may be infinite translations, there is only one correct one.

So where do I get this stuff (I guess your talking about all that stuff I said about who deserves to die)? It's just what I believe. I guess I'm too immersed in the idea of God being all powerful for most people, but it's what I believe to be true and I can back it up. [

]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Aah yes, the power of fairy tales.

Lead

busta_cap · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2004, 11:24:26 AM »

What the hell religion are you following?

leadmagnet · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2004, 12:26:31 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by busta_cap
 What the hell religion are you following?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you asking me if I'm following the "one true religion", or what?

Lead

busta_cap · « **Reply #25 on:** November 11, 2004, 12:30:25 PM »

Not you lead, yellowmonkey.

leadmagnet · « **Reply #26 on:** November 11, 2004, 12:49:53 PM »

It wouldn't bother me so much if it were only those who had the same beliefs as him who treated their womenfolk (assuming they also agree) that way, but they want to impose their beliefs upon the rest of us.

Lead

yellowmonkey · « **Reply #27 on:** November 11, 2004, 04:23:19 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by busta_cap
 Not you lead, yellowmonkey.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I usually call myself a Protestant Christian.

And, I don't see where you get off saying that I impose my ideals on everyone else. I may tell that you are wrong and tell you the right way to do something, but I thus far, never forced anyone to follow the path of Christianity, nor could I. What anyone believes is completely up to them.

Why is it that you say we treat our "womenfolk *that* way"? Are Christians too respectful of women and morality for you? Do we place too much importance on chastity or marriage? I say, how can you disregard those things which are so obviously right?

If I was the king of my own nation, I would make it law to abide by the word of God, but in accordance with the presidents set fourth by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, we wouldn't be stoning anybody. Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, justice, and the word of God (spoken, written, or put into the hearts of men).

leadmagnet · « **Reply #28 on:** November 11, 2004, 09:06:32 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by busta_cap
 Not you lead, yellowmonkey.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I usually call myself a Protestant Christian.

And, I don't see where you get off saying that I impose my ideals on everyone else.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sorry, but I thought you were one of the big supporters around here of the anti-gay marriage admendments and such. Ain't that "forcing your path of Christianity" upon the rest of us?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
Why is it that you say we treat our womenfolk *that* way? Are Christians too respectful of women and morality for you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry bud, but forcing your women into a life of servitude doesn't strike me as being "respectful".
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
Do we place too much importance on chastity or marriage? I say, how can you disregard those things which are so obviously right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

To be honest with you, I find that to be one of your very few qualities.

Lead

busta_cap · « **Reply #29 on:** November 11, 2004, 09:19:48 PM »

For once, I agree with everything you said Lead

News:

Author Topic: (Read 3157 times)

Greg

(No subject)

yellowmonkey

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

delta_echo

(No subject)

busta_cap

(No subject)

Greg

(No subject)

yellowmonkey

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

busta_cap

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

busta_cap

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

yellowmonkey

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

busta_cap

(No subject)