I just saw this from a neighboring state.
14 year old acts like a grown ass man
14 year old acts like a grown ass man
- Thread starter TLong
- Start date
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
It is what it is. Spreading anarchy-nobody cares. There is a segment of the population-and make no mistake,they're getting younger all the time, and they have no respect for anyone.
This society has fostered a generation that will take NO responsibility for their own actions. 14y/o-where ARE THE PARENTS?
This shit didn't start yesterday! But in a struggle,with a loose gun-had the kid got smoked-cop goes to jail. Simple.
It really depends where you work as a LEO, some areas are obviously worse than others-but nowhere is immune.
Stay alert and stay alive. A 14y/o can kill you as dead as a "grown ass man".
It is what it is. Spreading anarchy-nobody cares. There is a segment of the population-and make no mistake,they're getting younger all the time, and they have no respect for anyone.
This society has fostered a generation that will take NO responsibility for their own actions. 14y/o-where ARE THE PARENTS?
This shit didn't start yesterday! But in a struggle,with a loose gun-had the kid got smoked-cop goes to jail. Simple.
It really depends where you work as a LEO, some areas are obviously worse than others-but nowhere is immune.
Stay alert and stay alive. A 14y/o can kill you as dead as a "grown ass man".
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
A police officer in Oak Park, MI. was killed by a 16yo last year. Officer didnt arrest him and was taking him home, when they fought. This is the result of political correct policing.
A police officer in Oak Park, MI. was killed by a 16yo last year. Officer didnt arrest him and was taking him home, when they fought. This is the result of political correct policing.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
You are right, where are the parents? This incident happens way to often, when I was 14 if a Policeman was even talking to me I was scared as hell, now adays they could give a rats ass. I know of countries where that would have been the kids 1st and only chance, but here the COP would have been burned at the cross if that kid got hurt. We need to change back where the Police has more rights than the criminals.
You are right, where are the parents? This incident happens way to often, when I was 14 if a Policeman was even talking to me I was scared as hell, now adays they could give a rats ass. I know of countries where that would have been the kids 1st and only chance, but here the COP would have been burned at the cross if that kid got hurt. We need to change back where the Police has more rights than the criminals.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
The kid should have been shot the minute he took the officer's Taser but then of course all of the liberal twats would have been up in arms "BUT HE WAS ONLY A 14 YEAR OLD KID, WHY'D HE HAVE TO BE SHOT"! Followed by the news media displaying his communion/kindergarten picture and portraying him like an angel.
Thank God no officers were hurt.
The kid should have been shot the minute he took the officer's Taser but then of course all of the liberal twats would have been up in arms "BUT HE WAS ONLY A 14 YEAR OLD KID, WHY'D HE HAVE TO BE SHOT"! Followed by the news media displaying his communion/kindergarten picture and portraying him like an angel.
Thank God no officers were hurt.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
And forget about the fucking parents. You try to do the right thing nowadays and bring a little punk home instead of taking them to jail for some petty shit, the parents are looking at you like you're the one who committed the offense.
And forget about the fucking parents. You try to do the right thing nowadays and bring a little punk home instead of taking them to jail for some petty shit, the parents are looking at you like you're the one who committed the offense.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div>No it isn't. It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div>No it isn't. It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div><span style="font-weight: bold">No it isn't. </span>It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either. </div></div>
Yes it is actually! Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison. Like I said before, he should have been shot the minute he took the Taser.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div><span style="font-weight: bold">No it isn't. </span>It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either. </div></div>
Yes it is actually! Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison. Like I said before, he should have been shot the minute he took the Taser.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Man, reading the article, either that kid was one big ass 14 year old, or those officers need some serious time at the gym and refining of their SOPs!
"so the deputy pulled out his stun gun. The boy grabbed the stun gun,"
"Minor then drew his firearm and ordered the suspect to get on the ground. That’s when the suspect grabbed the barrel of the gun and tried to strong-arm the deputy,"
"The suspect surrendered but began to fight when Hall tried to handcuff him ... The suspect grabbed (Hall’s) gun and tried to turn it on the officer,” Aiken said."
Man, reading the article, either that kid was one big ass 14 year old, or those officers need some serious time at the gym and refining of their SOPs!
"so the deputy pulled out his stun gun. The boy grabbed the stun gun,"
"Minor then drew his firearm and ordered the suspect to get on the ground. That’s when the suspect grabbed the barrel of the gun and tried to strong-arm the deputy,"
"The suspect surrendered but began to fight when Hall tried to handcuff him ... The suspect grabbed (Hall’s) gun and tried to turn it on the officer,” Aiken said."
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div>No it isn't. It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either. </div></div>
Absolutely it is, go take a look at any POST curriculum and compare the hours spent on DT/Firearms and the hours spent on Community Oriented Policing/Sociology/Victim Advocacy/ etc etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div>No it isn't. It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either. </div></div>
Absolutely it is, go take a look at any POST curriculum and compare the hours spent on DT/Firearms and the hours spent on Community Oriented Policing/Sociology/Victim Advocacy/ etc etc.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div><span style="font-weight: bold">No it isn't. </span>It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either.</div></div>Yes it is actually!</div></div>No, it isn't. But say again that it is, because this kind of exchange is what others on the site find to be truly helpful and educational.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison.</div></div>Really? I didn't know.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Absolutely it is, go take a look at any POST curriculum and compare the hours spent on DT/Firearms and the hours spent on Community Oriented Policing/Sociology/Victim Advocacy/ etc etc. </div></div>Why blame the system for one's failures? That's exactly what criminals do and want they want us to believe.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The_Punisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the result of political correct policing.</div></div><span style="font-weight: bold">No it isn't. </span>It's a training and tactics issue. And I'm not sure the location of the parents plays any part in it either.</div></div>Yes it is actually!</div></div>No, it isn't. But say again that it is, because this kind of exchange is what others on the site find to be truly helpful and educational.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison.</div></div>Really? I didn't know.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Absolutely it is, go take a look at any POST curriculum and compare the hours spent on DT/Firearms and the hours spent on Community Oriented Policing/Sociology/Victim Advocacy/ etc etc. </div></div>Why blame the system for one's failures? That's exactly what criminals do and want they want us to believe.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Slapchop hit the nail on the head.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison.</div></div>
I saw it coming when I retired, Even 15 years ago, now its worse.
When I started out (1974) it was a lot differant, now you couldn't pay enough to get me back on the job.
Not just LE, look at the ROE now compaired to Vietnam. This bullshit will cost the lives of our cops and soldiers.
Slapchop hit the nail on the head.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lots of guys hesitate to do their jobs for fear of being sued, fired, dragged through the courts or worse sent to prison.</div></div>
I saw it coming when I retired, Even 15 years ago, now its worse.
When I started out (1974) it was a lot differant, now you couldn't pay enough to get me back on the job.
Not just LE, look at the ROE now compaired to Vietnam. This bullshit will cost the lives of our cops and soldiers.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
This story ended a little happier here in Tampa early this a.m.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/20/201240/tampa-police-officer-shot-home-invasion-suspect/
Some of the comments reflect the frustrations of people beset by career criminals in our midst. Both of the shitbags in this case have records extending well into their early teens.
This story ended a little happier here in Tampa early this a.m.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/20/201240/tampa-police-officer-shot-home-invasion-suspect/
Some of the comments reflect the frustrations of people beset by career criminals in our midst. Both of the shitbags in this case have records extending well into their early teens.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
All I know is, you'd better have a story epically in line to that of Mark Twain to try and explain how you couldn't retain your weapon against a 14 year old...
All I know is, you'd better have a story epically in line to that of Mark Twain to try and explain how you couldn't retain your weapon against a 14 year old...
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
my 6 year old boy was being kicked and punched by the son of 2 strung out junkies in his school. we eventually got it out of him after a sizeable change in his behaviour was noticed by us and the school itself.
My wife approached the parents in a calm manner and the father then subjected my wife to a tirade of verbal shit..... Principal in fairness to him handled it in double quick time... he also told me that he woulds have been obliged to inform the police if i laid a finger on him...
Your right. its the parents.... its learned behavior and its subjecting another generation of our young people to be the next generation of prison fodder... Sad, very sad.
my 6 year old boy was being kicked and punched by the son of 2 strung out junkies in his school. we eventually got it out of him after a sizeable change in his behaviour was noticed by us and the school itself.
My wife approached the parents in a calm manner and the father then subjected my wife to a tirade of verbal shit..... Principal in fairness to him handled it in double quick time... he also told me that he woulds have been obliged to inform the police if i laid a finger on him...
Your right. its the parents.... its learned behavior and its subjecting another generation of our young people to be the next generation of prison fodder... Sad, very sad.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
It starts and ends with the parents or lack there of. Look at video games they get to play, grand theft auto, mortal combat, call of duty, helo, I see these games advertised and think "what is happening to the youth of america, their innocence is being stole from them?" Videos, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, freddy cougar, nightmare on elm street, chainsaw massacre, violence is glourified and a 14 y/o trying to steal cops guns and then threatening to kill them are the product of this cluster fuck.
These kids are so tuned to computers, video games, tv, and what have you and the violence on them they have become desensitised to it, they start to lose the ability to determine right from wrong (add no/lack of parenting) and it is just a reciepe for disaster.
It starts and ends with the parents or lack there of. Look at video games they get to play, grand theft auto, mortal combat, call of duty, helo, I see these games advertised and think "what is happening to the youth of america, their innocence is being stole from them?" Videos, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, freddy cougar, nightmare on elm street, chainsaw massacre, violence is glourified and a 14 y/o trying to steal cops guns and then threatening to kill them are the product of this cluster fuck.
These kids are so tuned to computers, video games, tv, and what have you and the violence on them they have become desensitised to it, they start to lose the ability to determine right from wrong (add no/lack of parenting) and it is just a reciepe for disaster.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
We had a narcotics officer lose his gun in a struggle with a bad guy the other day. Thank God the Narc had a back up in his raid vest and shot and killed the bad guy.
I'm very hesitant to second judge any officer. I can remember saying "I would've done this or I would've done that!"
After 20 years I've come to realize that's BS. I catch myself thinking 'I HOPE I would've done this or that.'
We seem to be getting a better grade of rookies nowadays due to so many having prior military experience, but on the other hand, the bad guys seem to be getting younger and more violent.
I really pity some of the older street cops I see now.
I realized that if you think the world is passing you by or changing too quickly for you to keep up, maybe you should run faster and try harder.
Every call is a "man with a gun" call once you arrive.
It's up to you to hang onto it!
We had a narcotics officer lose his gun in a struggle with a bad guy the other day. Thank God the Narc had a back up in his raid vest and shot and killed the bad guy.
I'm very hesitant to second judge any officer. I can remember saying "I would've done this or I would've done that!"
After 20 years I've come to realize that's BS. I catch myself thinking 'I HOPE I would've done this or that.'
We seem to be getting a better grade of rookies nowadays due to so many having prior military experience, but on the other hand, the bad guys seem to be getting younger and more violent.
I really pity some of the older street cops I see now.
I realized that if you think the world is passing you by or changing too quickly for you to keep up, maybe you should run faster and try harder.
Every call is a "man with a gun" call once you arrive.
It's up to you to hang onto it!
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Slapchop hit the nail on the head.</div></div>Sure he did, if his intent was to defend officers with an unrealistic view of the world who are in the wrong line of work.
When I got hired nobody guaranteed me a get-out-of-jail-free card. I, for one, would not advocate a system that makes it easier for those in authority to violate the constitutional rights of others. And I would not fight for a military that practiced indiscriminate killing.
Law enforcement, in general, needs to do a better job at hiring the right people and giving them better training.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Slapchop hit the nail on the head.</div></div>Sure he did, if his intent was to defend officers with an unrealistic view of the world who are in the wrong line of work.
When I got hired nobody guaranteed me a get-out-of-jail-free card. I, for one, would not advocate a system that makes it easier for those in authority to violate the constitutional rights of others. And I would not fight for a military that practiced indiscriminate killing.
Law enforcement, in general, needs to do a better job at hiring the right people and giving them better training.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The kid should have been shot the minute he took the officer's Taser but then of course all of the liberal twats would have been up in arms "BUT HE WAS ONLY A 14 YEAR OLD KID, WHY'D HE HAVE TO BE SHOT"! Followed by the news media displaying his communion/kindergarten picture and portraying him like an angel.
Thank God no officers were hurt. </div></div>
You aren't kidding - that REALLY happened in California a couple years ago, hte mom was saying "Why'd he have to get shot" - never mind he TOOK a shot and his gun jammed - same thing.
Our media has emboldened teenagers to have "Rights" - but my daughter still gets the fear of death, from me anyway, when she steps out of line.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The kid should have been shot the minute he took the officer's Taser but then of course all of the liberal twats would have been up in arms "BUT HE WAS ONLY A 14 YEAR OLD KID, WHY'D HE HAVE TO BE SHOT"! Followed by the news media displaying his communion/kindergarten picture and portraying him like an angel.
Thank God no officers were hurt. </div></div>
You aren't kidding - that REALLY happened in California a couple years ago, hte mom was saying "Why'd he have to get shot" - never mind he TOOK a shot and his gun jammed - same thing.
Our media has emboldened teenagers to have "Rights" - but my daughter still gets the fear of death, from me anyway, when she steps out of line.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings. </div></div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Yawnnnnnn </span></span>
Spare us the 3rd party war story that you weren't even a part of nor which has any relevance to the topic. Regardless of what happened out there and no one here was there, the fact is that LE is being deballed and debilitated little by little and it's what the liberals, main stream media and the <span style="font-weight: bold">prick, bottom feeding</span> lawyers all want.
The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings. </div></div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Yawnnnnnn </span></span>
The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served. </div></div>It's not hesitation that kills cops. But a hesitation can often be the result of the other factors at play. One doesn't need to have been killed to understand that. If you are uncomfortable doing your job get better training or get out. In our line of work attacking others instead of being honest about your knowledge, skills and abilitites is a recipe for disaster.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served. </div></div>It's not hesitation that kills cops. But a hesitation can often be the result of the other factors at play. One doesn't need to have been killed to understand that. If you are uncomfortable doing your job get better training or get out. In our line of work attacking others instead of being honest about your knowledge, skills and abilitites is a recipe for disaster.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Slapchop-very well said. Having been there,done that-almost getting killed and now permanently disabled as a result of a line of duty injury. I agree 100%
Anybody that talks the shit of "Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" has NEVER had the opportunity to testify in a FEDERAL GRAND JURY.
Even if you pull the trigger and get no billed or Aquitted by a JURY OF YOUR PEER's. The Federal Govt.in all its power will descend and via USC1983 determines that you violated the perp's rights-your ass will be in FEDERAL PRISON. DOuble jeopardy-does not apply. ANd if you don't think that is in the back of EVERY cop's mind-you are sadly mistaken.
Furthermore,if you haven't been an OFFICALLY SWORN ACTIVE DUTY LEO you have NO IDEA.
Slapchop-very well said. Having been there,done that-almost getting killed and now permanently disabled as a result of a line of duty injury. I agree 100%
Anybody that talks the shit of "Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" has NEVER had the opportunity to testify in a FEDERAL GRAND JURY.
Even if you pull the trigger and get no billed or Aquitted by a JURY OF YOUR PEER's. The Federal Govt.in all its power will descend and via USC1983 determines that you violated the perp's rights-your ass will be in FEDERAL PRISON. DOuble jeopardy-does not apply. ANd if you don't think that is in the back of EVERY cop's mind-you are sadly mistaken.
Furthermore,if you haven't been an OFFICALLY SWORN ACTIVE DUTY LEO you have NO IDEA.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Let them eat Brioche.'</div></div>
And it wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that. She was only 13 when Rousseau recorded that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Let them eat Brioche.'</div></div>
And it wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that. She was only 13 when Rousseau recorded that.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Let them eat Brioche.'</div></div>And it wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that. She was only 13 when Rousseau recorded that.</div></div>Lindy, I can always rely on you never to miss a point.
Relevant to this Thread is that Marie Antoinette was never really the Queen of France, either. She was only the first modern Diva - obsessed with the uniform and the privilige that came with her position. Queen was just a role she played because she never assumed the obligations and responsibility that came with the position. In the end even she found reason to complain.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lt. Arclight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Furthermore,if you haven't been an OFFICALLY SWORN ACTIVE DUTY LEO you have NO IDEA.</div></div>The converse is not always true: I've met several, and worked with a few, who also had absolutely no idea.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Let them eat Brioche.'</div></div>And it wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that. She was only 13 when Rousseau recorded that.</div></div>Lindy, I can always rely on you never to miss a point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lt. Arclight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Furthermore,if you haven't been an OFFICALLY SWORN ACTIVE DUTY LEO you have NO IDEA.</div></div>The converse is not always true: I've met several, and worked with a few, who also had absolutely no idea.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served. </div></div>It's not hesitation that kills cops. But a hesitation can often be the result of the other factors at play. One doesn't need to have been killed to understand that. If you are uncomfortable doing your job get better training or get out. <span style="color: #FF0000">In our line of work</span> attacking others instead of being honest about your knowledge, skills and abilitites is a recipe for disaster. </div></div>
Judging from your diatribe, I doubt you and I are in the "same line of work".
You speak like either a pogue or a supervisor/administrator who's had one too many gallons of Kool Aid.
Good day sir!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The days when an officer could act, without hesitation to save life and property are long gone. Before taking action, a cop now has to weigh what penalties he might incur for simply doing his job. That hesitation is what kills cops.
But then again, I'm sure that Graham knows all about it being that he seems to know everything and is so high up on his horse that he feels the need to come on here and Monday morning quarterback two cops who almost got killed by doing their jobs.
Whatever function you had in LE, something tells me that you were NEVER a street cop. Save the nonsensical drivel for another board/forum where you delusions might be better served. </div></div>It's not hesitation that kills cops. But a hesitation can often be the result of the other factors at play. One doesn't need to have been killed to understand that. If you are uncomfortable doing your job get better training or get out. <span style="color: #FF0000">In our line of work</span> attacking others instead of being honest about your knowledge, skills and abilitites is a recipe for disaster. </div></div>
Judging from your diatribe, I doubt you and I are in the "same line of work".
You speak like either a pogue or a supervisor/administrator who's had one too many gallons of Kool Aid.
Good day sir!
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Judging from your diatribe, I doubt you and I are in the "same line or work".</div></div>On that we agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Judging from your diatribe, I doubt you and I are in the "same line or work".</div></div>On that we agree.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/
It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
These "studies" fail to point out one very important factor.
When an "assailant" fires rounds at the LEO-he doesn't care where they go and what or whom they strike. EVERY round in the LEO magazine WILL be accounted for.
Are there times when deadly force was called for and not used-absolutely. The study doesn't show what is in the LEO's subconscious mind concerning the Dog and Pony show that comes after a Police Shooting-either justified or not.
"Public Outcry" and Political perversion of the "justice" system is stacked exponentially against the LEO. That is a fact and that also gets cops killed.
These "studies" fail to point out one very important factor.
When an "assailant" fires rounds at the LEO-he doesn't care where they go and what or whom they strike. EVERY round in the LEO magazine WILL be accounted for.
Are there times when deadly force was called for and not used-absolutely. The study doesn't show what is in the LEO's subconscious mind concerning the Dog and Pony show that comes after a Police Shooting-either justified or not.
"Public Outcry" and Political perversion of the "justice" system is stacked exponentially against the LEO. That is a fact and that also gets cops killed.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
LT.
Actually that study touches on the subject to a degree.
From the article
<span style="color: #FF0000"> SHOOTING STYLE.
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.
“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”</span>
LT.
Actually that study touches on the subject to a degree.
From the article
<span style="color: #FF0000"> SHOOTING STYLE.
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.
“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”</span>
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Looking forward to the second guessing of the officer's actions in the Kalamazoo incident.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/04/kalamazoo_public_safety_office_1.html
Sorry, but I tire of the "find another line of work" platitude applied everytime an attorney pipes up in a case like this. When market forces begin to apply to the sickenig glut of lawyers, an odd externality that defies basic supply and demand analysis, perhaps a more realistic metric will be applied to the actions of law enforcement in the daily grind of policing the un-fucking-believably stupid throng of willful ignorami they block from the rest of us.
The judgmentalism of the"gated communtiy" types, the journalist-lefties and the desperate for clients(any clients)legal profession is almost as tiresome as the insipid "analysis" of the "Street" experts who always pipe up with, "oh well, he use(sic) too much force."
Would I have shot the little bastard? Who the fuck knows? But right about now I want to because, make no mistake, the odds of that 14 Y/O thug-prick turning his life around are less than my chances of nailing Angelina Jolie (which surprisingly, aren't too high...). Chances are quite good it won't be the second guessers this shit bag eventually kills.
The particular demographic I am eliptically referring to is now hopelessly mired in the victim/welfare statist/something for nothing/who needs to speak any discernable language, loop. There is either immense heavy lifting required to turn this around or we will be at each others throats. I tend to believe it increasingly trends to the latter.
While the answer for more prosperous people has traditionally been to abondon living in the city, and move to the suburbs or exurbs, the cities have devolved into chaotic, mismanaged, shitholes, typically run by utter incompetent race hustlers and blowhards, free to screw up with out meaningful criticism or oversight which would be denounced as racist.
So Detroit, Philly, Atlanta, Gary, Newark, nearly all metro areas, have devolved into Mecca's for slackers, lay abouts and criminal expoiters who run the gamut from utterly brutal to petty criminals. And all of them have scum bag lawyers to press for their $40,000.00 settlements...
Sorry Graham, you're a smart guy, but on this one I disagree; Not saying one way or the other as I was not there, but there is a mob of shitbags like no other in our history and their demands and expectations are irreconcilible with those of reasonable suburban people.
I'm not bitter though...
Looking forward to the second guessing of the officer's actions in the Kalamazoo incident.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/04/kalamazoo_public_safety_office_1.html
Sorry, but I tire of the "find another line of work" platitude applied everytime an attorney pipes up in a case like this. When market forces begin to apply to the sickenig glut of lawyers, an odd externality that defies basic supply and demand analysis, perhaps a more realistic metric will be applied to the actions of law enforcement in the daily grind of policing the un-fucking-believably stupid throng of willful ignorami they block from the rest of us.
The judgmentalism of the"gated communtiy" types, the journalist-lefties and the desperate for clients(any clients)legal profession is almost as tiresome as the insipid "analysis" of the "Street" experts who always pipe up with, "oh well, he use(sic) too much force."
Would I have shot the little bastard? Who the fuck knows? But right about now I want to because, make no mistake, the odds of that 14 Y/O thug-prick turning his life around are less than my chances of nailing Angelina Jolie (which surprisingly, aren't too high...). Chances are quite good it won't be the second guessers this shit bag eventually kills.
The particular demographic I am eliptically referring to is now hopelessly mired in the victim/welfare statist/something for nothing/who needs to speak any discernable language, loop. There is either immense heavy lifting required to turn this around or we will be at each others throats. I tend to believe it increasingly trends to the latter.
While the answer for more prosperous people has traditionally been to abondon living in the city, and move to the suburbs or exurbs, the cities have devolved into chaotic, mismanaged, shitholes, typically run by utter incompetent race hustlers and blowhards, free to screw up with out meaningful criticism or oversight which would be denounced as racist.
So Detroit, Philly, Atlanta, Gary, Newark, nearly all metro areas, have devolved into Mecca's for slackers, lay abouts and criminal expoiters who run the gamut from utterly brutal to petty criminals. And all of them have scum bag lawyers to press for their $40,000.00 settlements...
Sorry Graham, you're a smart guy, but on this one I disagree; Not saying one way or the other as I was not there, but there is a mob of shitbags like no other in our history and their demands and expectations are irreconcilible with those of reasonable suburban people.
I'm not bitter though...
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LT.
Actually that study touches on the subject to a degree.
From the article
<span style="color: #FF0000"> SHOOTING STYLE.
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.
“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”</span>
</div></div>
Thank you for proving my point.
Another gem from your study that you neglected to put up:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">–<span style="font-weight: bold">have no hesitation</span> whatsoever about pulling the trigger. <span style="font-weight: bold">“If you hesitate,”</span> one told the study’s researchers, <span style="font-weight: bold">“you’re dead.</span> You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”</div></div>
Again, thanks for making it easy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LT.
Actually that study touches on the subject to a degree.
From the article
<span style="color: #FF0000"> SHOOTING STYLE.
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.
“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”</span>
</div></div>
Thank you for proving my point.
Another gem from your study that you neglected to put up:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">–<span style="font-weight: bold">have no hesitation</span> whatsoever about pulling the trigger. <span style="font-weight: bold">“If you hesitate,”</span> one told the study’s researchers, <span style="font-weight: bold">“you’re dead.</span> You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”</div></div>
Again, thanks for making it easy.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Round and round we go. As mentioned before-look at the usual course of study at "ANY" accredited Police Academy.
How much time is spent on Officer Survival and Firearms training vs. Community Oriented Policing,Sensitivity training etc.
Having taught Firearms to both in-service Officers as well as Police Trainees, I can tell you the time spent in the academy is only so long. The emphasis on staying alive simply isn't there.From experience in investigating Police Shootings-the emphasis isn't on the Officer's Welfare either. But it is true-be fast or be dead.
Contrary to what some think-most cops aren't into guns. They take in-service training and qualification as a task they would rather avoid. We acually provided FREE AMMO between qualifications.FREE. Few actually took advantage of it.
Train to fight and you fight like you trained.If you were one of the guys that really didn't care......
Round and round we go. As mentioned before-look at the usual course of study at "ANY" accredited Police Academy.
How much time is spent on Officer Survival and Firearms training vs. Community Oriented Policing,Sensitivity training etc.
Having taught Firearms to both in-service Officers as well as Police Trainees, I can tell you the time spent in the academy is only so long. The emphasis on staying alive simply isn't there.From experience in investigating Police Shootings-the emphasis isn't on the Officer's Welfare either. But it is true-be fast or be dead.
Contrary to what some think-most cops aren't into guns. They take in-service training and qualification as a task they would rather avoid. We acually provided FREE AMMO between qualifications.FREE. Few actually took advantage of it.
Train to fight and you fight like you trained.If you were one of the guys that really didn't care......
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
It amazes me that anyone can look at a current POST curriculum and not acknowledge that "The System" holds a tremendous amount of responsibility for what is happening at the street level.
It is easy to say that an officer is responsible for his own training after 20 years of hindsight. However, how can you justify that position to a twentysomething year old kid who has just been coined out of POST. He only knows what he knows and will act accordingly.
It amazes me that anyone can look at a current POST curriculum and not acknowledge that "The System" holds a tremendous amount of responsibility for what is happening at the street level.
It is easy to say that an officer is responsible for his own training after 20 years of hindsight. However, how can you justify that position to a twentysomething year old kid who has just been coined out of POST. He only knows what he knows and will act accordingly.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Graham, you're a smart guy, but on this one I disagree; Not saying one way or the other as I was not there, but there is a mob of shitbags like no other in our history and their demands and expectations are irreconcilible with those of reasonable suburban people.</div></div>I understand what you are saying. Others miss the point and are content to talk through those with whom they disagree instead of having a discussion. Ego will do that. I am not free to comment on the Kalamazoo incident.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Graham, you're a smart guy, but on this one I disagree; Not saying one way or the other as I was not there, but there is a mob of shitbags like no other in our history and their demands and expectations are irreconcilible with those of reasonable suburban people.</div></div>I understand what you are saying. Others miss the point and are content to talk through those with whom they disagree instead of having a discussion. Ego will do that. I am not free to comment on the Kalamazoo incident.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It starts and ends with the parents or lack there of. Look at video games they get to play, grand theft auto, mortal combat, call of duty, helo, I see these games advertised and think "what is happening to the youth of america, their innocence is being stole from them?" Videos, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, freddy cougar, nightmare on elm street, chainsaw massacre, violence is glourified and a 14 y/o trying to steal cops guns and then threatening to kill them are the product of this cluster fuck.
These kids are so tuned to computers, video games, tv, and what have you and the violence on them they have become desensitised to it, they start to lose the ability to determine right from wrong (add no/lack of parenting) and it is just a reciepe for disaster. </div></div>
That, I'm afraid to say, is mostly crap. Kid just needed a belt taken to him, and regardless of what they say, its NEVER too late.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It starts and ends with the parents or lack there of. Look at video games they get to play, grand theft auto, mortal combat, call of duty, helo, I see these games advertised and think "what is happening to the youth of america, their innocence is being stole from them?" Videos, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, freddy cougar, nightmare on elm street, chainsaw massacre, violence is glourified and a 14 y/o trying to steal cops guns and then threatening to kill them are the product of this cluster fuck.
These kids are so tuned to computers, video games, tv, and what have you and the violence on them they have become desensitised to it, they start to lose the ability to determine right from wrong (add no/lack of parenting) and it is just a reciepe for disaster. </div></div>
That, I'm afraid to say, is mostly crap. Kid just needed a belt taken to him, and regardless of what they say, its NEVER too late.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kid just needed a belt taken to him, and regardless of what they say, its NEVER too late.</div></div>Except that it's too late at 18. Note that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 39.01, corporal punishment may be considered excessive if it leads to any of the following injuries or harm to the child: Sprains, dislocations, or cartilage damage; Bone or skull fractures; Brain or spinal cord damage; Intracranial hemorrhage or injury to other internal organs; Asphyxiation, suffocation, or drowning; Injury resulting from the use of a deadly weapon; Burns or scalding injuries; Cuts, lacerations, punctures, or bites related injuries; Permanent or temporary disfigurement; Permanent or temporary loss or impairment of a body part or function; or Significant bruises or welts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kid just needed a belt taken to him, and regardless of what they say, its NEVER too late.</div></div>Except that it's too late at 18. Note that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 39.01, corporal punishment may be considered excessive if it leads to any of the following injuries or harm to the child: Sprains, dislocations, or cartilage damage; Bone or skull fractures; Brain or spinal cord damage; Intracranial hemorrhage or injury to other internal organs; Asphyxiation, suffocation, or drowning; Injury resulting from the use of a deadly weapon; Burns or scalding injuries; Cuts, lacerations, punctures, or bites related injuries; Permanent or temporary disfigurement; Permanent or temporary loss or impairment of a body part or function; or Significant bruises or welts.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
This kid was 14, and it never hurts to try. And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.
This kid was 14, and it never hurts to try. And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
I see what you're getting at, but parents who lose their children usually do the damage well-before age 14.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.</div></div>Agreed. But, as I argued above regarding the use of force, one's subjective assessment is not the standard no matter how much some people wish that it was. The question in these cases is always who decides - who decides whether it was a 'whipping' or abuse. You don't have to beat a kid to death to go to jail. Read the statute again: the parent is not the one who decides.
I see what you're getting at, but parents who lose their children usually do the damage well-before age 14.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.</div></div>Agreed. But, as I argued above regarding the use of force, one's subjective assessment is not the standard no matter how much some people wish that it was. The question in these cases is always who decides - who decides whether it was a 'whipping' or abuse. You don't have to beat a kid to death to go to jail. Read the statute again: the parent is not the one who decides.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Use of Force continuum puts the deputy absolutely in the right if he had chosen to shoot the suspect, why he did not, only that deputy can answer that question. To equivocate that his response is due to a lack of training and tactics does a disservice to our profession, and to assume that political correctness does not have a factor in modern law enforcement decision making is a fallacy. I for one can speak personally to choices made in the line of duty, and can tell you that even in a split second, with training kicking in, thoughts of liability and public perception have gone through my mind. Did it cause hesitation, absolutely, though at the time it was not readily apparent to me. Why do those thoughts persist in an instinctual situation, because in modern law enforcement with lawyers at the ready, scrutiny for split second decisions are played and replayed by individuals who interpret the law but have no concept of the implementation of their enforcement. With those situations engrained in every police recruits mind during the academy, field training, and eventually in-service training, how would they not. The old adage that “I would rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6” still applies to a degree. However when a person dedicates his life to a career in law enforcement, and can have everything he has worked for taken away because he made a split second decision that was necessary, it would cause any person to hesitate. Consider this, your decision was absolutely justified and lawful, but with a frivolous lawsuit instigated, as an officer you will need to retain an attorney and that cost money. Depending on the length of the civil case, that can drain an officer’s finances quite quickly, even to the point of bankruptcy. Does the department retain the attorney, not always in civil suits, in most cases deep pocket theory names the officer involved and the department. But what if your actions are lawful, but violate SOP, then the department washes its hands of the officer in the civil suit. In my career, I have found that SOP’s are not altruistic for the officer’s benefit, but for avoidance of vicarious liability in civil matters whether by the officer or a citizen.
Early on in my career as a police officer, I was involved in Signal 108, officer's life in danger. I was with three other officers behind a perpetrator vehicle suspected of committing multiple 64G's (Armed Robberies) that evening occupied by three (3) men. The vehicle had been identified by a victim who was giving his report to the responding officer and saw the suspect vehicle drive by afterward, subsequently the officer followed the vehicle until back up could arrive to assist. I personally had a broken foot and was assigned to desk duty due to my injury. I was in the vehicle with the other officers because we were returning from diner, and I was being dropped back off at the office. Fortunately, or unfortunately we were the closest unit to respond. Despite my condition, we proceeded to render asssistance. We blocked the vehicle in at the intersection and proceeded to conduct a felony stop with the originating officer. Once we got out on the suspects, the driver and rear passenger fled into a crowd at a nearby bar, the two officers in the car with me gave chase to the fleeing suspects, and I began to grapple with the passenger through the opened window. Unfortunately the passenger door of the suspect vehicle could not be opened, leaving me little choice but to go through window. I was committed to the apprehension, as was the suspect to fleeing. The passenger attempted to slide into the passenger seat with me grappling with him. As he did, he put his left foot on the accelerator and floored it. With me halfway through the window, the suspect hit 5 vehicles and crashed into the side of a house approximately a block and half away, throwing myself and the perpetrator from the car. During the joy ride while I was grappling with him, I observed two (2) sawed off shotguns, a 1911, and several ski masks in the space between the two front seats. I committed at that point that if he even made a semblance of a motion toward those guns, I would use deadly force, luckily for him, he didn’t. He was 15 years old, and responsible along with his coconspirators for a string of armed robberies that were plaguing the city for the preceding several weeks. What would have happened had I used deadly force? There was no physical control over the vehicle, only a 15 year old with his foot on the accelerator. What if a pedestrian had been struck and killed? What if the 15 year old died on impact? What if one the people hit by the car when he attempted to flee had died? Would I have been responsible for advancing the situation, or should I have allowed him to flee to preserve the immediate public safety. What would have happened if I allowed him to flee, and he subsequently murdered a person in a botched armed robbery later on. Would I have been held liable for dereliction of duty and subsequently liable for the person’s death because of my inaction though it was in the interest of the immediate public’s safety? Considering I was on limited duty due to a broken foot, SOP says I shouldn't have been involved, should they have dropped me off at the station, creating a lack of response to the originating officer. What is that officer had been killed due to me being dropped off creating an untimely response. As officers we have to make judgments, some times regarding life and death, and often with a lack of all the facts, and often we are forced to make those decisions in a matter of seconds. We are trained and paid to make those decisions by the citizens in our community, and anyone who is completely comfortable with that should probably be in another line of work because no person in their right mind would be.
What causes juveniles to take the actions they do? Weren’t hugged enough, not breast fed as a child, mom’s a crack head, or they came from a broken family, doesn’t really matter because they are still responsible for their actions. You will be hard pressed to find any policeman who doesn’t give serious consideration to any life taken in the line of duty, or the eminent possibility to have to take that action, especially if it is a juvenile threatening you. Would an officer think twice about shooting a juvenile who had a weapon pointed at him, absolutely? Would that officer be justified is he chose to use deadly force in that situation, absolutely. Would the child hesitate, well we only know when it doesn’t happen and an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately knowing a persons intention isn't possible.
Graham, though I appreciate your opinions I have to respectfully disagree.
Use of Force continuum puts the deputy absolutely in the right if he had chosen to shoot the suspect, why he did not, only that deputy can answer that question. To equivocate that his response is due to a lack of training and tactics does a disservice to our profession, and to assume that political correctness does not have a factor in modern law enforcement decision making is a fallacy. I for one can speak personally to choices made in the line of duty, and can tell you that even in a split second, with training kicking in, thoughts of liability and public perception have gone through my mind. Did it cause hesitation, absolutely, though at the time it was not readily apparent to me. Why do those thoughts persist in an instinctual situation, because in modern law enforcement with lawyers at the ready, scrutiny for split second decisions are played and replayed by individuals who interpret the law but have no concept of the implementation of their enforcement. With those situations engrained in every police recruits mind during the academy, field training, and eventually in-service training, how would they not. The old adage that “I would rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6” still applies to a degree. However when a person dedicates his life to a career in law enforcement, and can have everything he has worked for taken away because he made a split second decision that was necessary, it would cause any person to hesitate. Consider this, your decision was absolutely justified and lawful, but with a frivolous lawsuit instigated, as an officer you will need to retain an attorney and that cost money. Depending on the length of the civil case, that can drain an officer’s finances quite quickly, even to the point of bankruptcy. Does the department retain the attorney, not always in civil suits, in most cases deep pocket theory names the officer involved and the department. But what if your actions are lawful, but violate SOP, then the department washes its hands of the officer in the civil suit. In my career, I have found that SOP’s are not altruistic for the officer’s benefit, but for avoidance of vicarious liability in civil matters whether by the officer or a citizen.
Early on in my career as a police officer, I was involved in Signal 108, officer's life in danger. I was with three other officers behind a perpetrator vehicle suspected of committing multiple 64G's (Armed Robberies) that evening occupied by three (3) men. The vehicle had been identified by a victim who was giving his report to the responding officer and saw the suspect vehicle drive by afterward, subsequently the officer followed the vehicle until back up could arrive to assist. I personally had a broken foot and was assigned to desk duty due to my injury. I was in the vehicle with the other officers because we were returning from diner, and I was being dropped back off at the office. Fortunately, or unfortunately we were the closest unit to respond. Despite my condition, we proceeded to render asssistance. We blocked the vehicle in at the intersection and proceeded to conduct a felony stop with the originating officer. Once we got out on the suspects, the driver and rear passenger fled into a crowd at a nearby bar, the two officers in the car with me gave chase to the fleeing suspects, and I began to grapple with the passenger through the opened window. Unfortunately the passenger door of the suspect vehicle could not be opened, leaving me little choice but to go through window. I was committed to the apprehension, as was the suspect to fleeing. The passenger attempted to slide into the passenger seat with me grappling with him. As he did, he put his left foot on the accelerator and floored it. With me halfway through the window, the suspect hit 5 vehicles and crashed into the side of a house approximately a block and half away, throwing myself and the perpetrator from the car. During the joy ride while I was grappling with him, I observed two (2) sawed off shotguns, a 1911, and several ski masks in the space between the two front seats. I committed at that point that if he even made a semblance of a motion toward those guns, I would use deadly force, luckily for him, he didn’t. He was 15 years old, and responsible along with his coconspirators for a string of armed robberies that were plaguing the city for the preceding several weeks. What would have happened had I used deadly force? There was no physical control over the vehicle, only a 15 year old with his foot on the accelerator. What if a pedestrian had been struck and killed? What if the 15 year old died on impact? What if one the people hit by the car when he attempted to flee had died? Would I have been responsible for advancing the situation, or should I have allowed him to flee to preserve the immediate public safety. What would have happened if I allowed him to flee, and he subsequently murdered a person in a botched armed robbery later on. Would I have been held liable for dereliction of duty and subsequently liable for the person’s death because of my inaction though it was in the interest of the immediate public’s safety? Considering I was on limited duty due to a broken foot, SOP says I shouldn't have been involved, should they have dropped me off at the station, creating a lack of response to the originating officer. What is that officer had been killed due to me being dropped off creating an untimely response. As officers we have to make judgments, some times regarding life and death, and often with a lack of all the facts, and often we are forced to make those decisions in a matter of seconds. We are trained and paid to make those decisions by the citizens in our community, and anyone who is completely comfortable with that should probably be in another line of work because no person in their right mind would be.
What causes juveniles to take the actions they do? Weren’t hugged enough, not breast fed as a child, mom’s a crack head, or they came from a broken family, doesn’t really matter because they are still responsible for their actions. You will be hard pressed to find any policeman who doesn’t give serious consideration to any life taken in the line of duty, or the eminent possibility to have to take that action, especially if it is a juvenile threatening you. Would an officer think twice about shooting a juvenile who had a weapon pointed at him, absolutely? Would that officer be justified is he chose to use deadly force in that situation, absolutely. Would the child hesitate, well we only know when it doesn’t happen and an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately knowing a persons intention isn't possible.
Graham, though I appreciate your opinions I have to respectfully disagree.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/</div></div>Where, exactly?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another gem from your study that you neglected to put up:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">–<span style="font-weight: bold">have no hesitation</span> whatsoever about pulling the trigger. <span style="font-weight: bold">“If you hesitate,”</span> one told the study’s researchers, <span style="font-weight: bold">“you’re dead.</span> You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”</div></div>Again, thanks for making it easy.</div></div>I understand that none of us are here on a scholarship, but that quote in the study was from a 'would-be cop killer' and not a law enforcement officer. The study opens by stating that:
"...most would-be cop killers:
–show signs of being armed that officers miss;
–have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
–practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;..."
It therefore supports what I said, that hesitation due to the fear of litigation is not what kills cops; that many factors come in to play to determine an officer's fate well-before the decision to react is upon him.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/</div></div>Where, exactly?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another gem from your study that you neglected to put up:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">–<span style="font-weight: bold">have no hesitation</span> whatsoever about pulling the trigger. <span style="font-weight: bold">“If you hesitate,”</span> one told the study’s researchers, <span style="font-weight: bold">“you’re dead.</span> You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”</div></div>Again, thanks for making it easy.</div></div>I understand that none of us are here on a scholarship, but that quote in the study was from a 'would-be cop killer' and not a law enforcement officer. The study opens by stating that:
"...most would-be cop killers:
–show signs of being armed that officers miss;
–have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
–practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;..."
It therefore supports what I said, that hesitation due to the fear of litigation is not what kills cops; that many factors come in to play to determine an officer's fate well-before the decision to react is upon him.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Witch Doctor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, though I appreciate your opinions I have to respectfully disagree.</div></div>Your post was an interesting read. Thanks. With what do you disagree?
I'm not sure that what you and I are saying is all that far apart. I don't deny that officers have much to think about in times of crisis. I, too, have chosen the more conservative reaction over the more agressive one many times. But it was my choice to make. And I don't deny that for many officers with limited training, skills, ability, and knoweldge the job has become too scary and too complex an animal for them to handle properly. I am simply arguing reality: The political situation of the job is what it is; and we are paid to make correct decisions in that environment regardless of whether we would rather bitch and gripe about the system, the boss, or the other guy being to blame.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Witch Doctor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, though I appreciate your opinions I have to respectfully disagree.</div></div>Your post was an interesting read. Thanks. With what do you disagree?
I'm not sure that what you and I are saying is all that far apart. I don't deny that officers have much to think about in times of crisis. I, too, have chosen the more conservative reaction over the more agressive one many times. But it was my choice to make. And I don't deny that for many officers with limited training, skills, ability, and knoweldge the job has become too scary and too complex an animal for them to handle properly. I am simply arguing reality: The political situation of the job is what it is; and we are paid to make correct decisions in that environment regardless of whether we would rather bitch and gripe about the system, the boss, or the other guy being to blame.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see what you're getting at, but parents who lose their children usually do the damage well-before age 14.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.</div></div>Agreed. But, as I argued above regarding the use of force, one's subjective assessment is not the standard no matter how much some people wish that it was. The question in these cases is always who decides - who decides whether it was a 'whipping' or abuse. You don't have to beat a kid to death to go to jail. Read the statute again: the parent is not the one who decides. </div></div>
As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it. I might also add, most of the time, it just takes a "look"
I understand what you are saying, and its unfortunate some parents have acted out of pocket and laws like this have to be drawn up in the first place.
Kelly
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see what you're getting at, but parents who lose their children usually do the damage well-before age 14.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there is a difference between beating a kid to death and giving him a good whipping.</div></div>Agreed. But, as I argued above regarding the use of force, one's subjective assessment is not the standard no matter how much some people wish that it was. The question in these cases is always who decides - who decides whether it was a 'whipping' or abuse. You don't have to beat a kid to death to go to jail. Read the statute again: the parent is not the one who decides. </div></div>
As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it. I might also add, most of the time, it just takes a "look"
Kelly
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused. </div></div>
Like I said, its a shame there has to be guidelines in place to begin with.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused.
Like I said, its a shame there has to be guidelines in place to begin with.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/</div></div>
Where, exactly?</div></div>
The link was to an article summarizing the study. Too wore out to day to go on the search for the actual study document.
Throughout the study in the details of the encounters, the ivolved officers cited various reasons for either firing or not firing their weapon. However with much consistency they cited legal liabilities and aftermath's as a primary concern in their total preparation for lethal force incidents.
This fact flies directly against your statement that "the System" does not have any responsibility for these officers actions.
Yes were some of them undertrained or poor performers anyway, certainly. But when foremost on an officers mind day to day is all the negative outcomes of an OIS then yes the system does bear responsibility.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems that all your bullshit is refuted by one study. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/</div></div>
Where, exactly?</div></div>
The link was to an article summarizing the study. Too wore out to day to go on the search for the actual study document.
Throughout the study in the details of the encounters, the ivolved officers cited various reasons for either firing or not firing their weapon. However with much consistency they cited legal liabilities and aftermath's as a primary concern in their total preparation for lethal force incidents.
This fact flies directly against your statement that "the System" does not have any responsibility for these officers actions.
Yes were some of them undertrained or poor performers anyway, certainly. But when foremost on an officers mind day to day is all the negative outcomes of an OIS then yes the system does bear responsibility.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused. </div></div>
This where I disagree Graham, it is the assumption that police officers do not think things through, or refuse, or get confused. More specifically the generalities of the statement. Several post back, a reference to the good ole days of kick'n ass and taking names comes to mind. There is a lack of officer discretion, directly related to departmental policies and procedures. Much like our law makers drafting inane laws that should be comon sense. If an officer responds to a call for service, and makes a judgement call predicated cn common sense and the facts at hand, especially regarding children, domestic violence, or abuse the liability that the officer has opened himself up to can be grave. Is it right, no, but the response by departments is to take action by removing that discretion. I reflect on when I was a kid, if I did something stupid or mischeivious I paid the price at home, but law enforcement was never involved, and I am pretty sure it was never a thought to involve them either. Today though, and I believe it stemms from society's lack of personal responsability.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a PARENT, I decide what punishment my child needs.......I will deal with the fallout if and when it happens! I am not afraid of a bullshit statute for I have common sense, and am not afraid to use it.</div></div>Good for you.
Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused.
This where I disagree Graham, it is the assumption that police officers do not think things through, or refuse, or get confused. More specifically the generalities of the statement. Several post back, a reference to the good ole days of kick'n ass and taking names comes to mind. There is a lack of officer discretion, directly related to departmental policies and procedures. Much like our law makers drafting inane laws that should be comon sense. If an officer responds to a call for service, and makes a judgement call predicated cn common sense and the facts at hand, especially regarding children, domestic violence, or abuse the liability that the officer has opened himself up to can be grave. Is it right, no, but the response by departments is to take action by removing that discretion. I reflect on when I was a kid, if I did something stupid or mischeivious I paid the price at home, but law enforcement was never involved, and I am pretty sure it was never a thought to involve them either. Today though, and I believe it stemms from society's lack of personal responsability.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Graham, are you calling me out on what I said?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings. </div></div>
Graham, are you calling me out on what I said?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div>I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this.
Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion.
If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.
I remember talking with a SSGT, leader of a sniper team, who told me about the day a friend of his was shot while he was doing overwatch on the platoon. He had told this soldier a few times in the past to keep his head down. On that day, when he saw the soldier silhouette himself against the sky on a roof top, he was about to get on the radio and again tell the soldier to keep his head down when the enemy sniper opened-up.
In the debrief the team leader talked about the tactical failure. I'm sure that it was hard for peers, then friends and family to hear about the poor choice by the soldier. Does being honest about what happened mean that the team leader blamed the soldier for getting shot? Of course not. His death was the fault of the enemy sniper (who was subsequently located and killed by the team leader). But as a professional the leader had a duty to evaluate the situation honestly so that others may learn and to do things better next time.
My point is that only amateurs have the luxury of whining about how they should have been better served by the system and why what happened is really someone else's fault.
Remember: you can't continue to be a victim unless you blame others for your own shortcomings. </div></div>
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
Jeez ... I dunno how you guys do your job anymore, when you have to second guess every action. But I'm glad you do it.
There was a time, not all that long ago either I'm ashamed to say, when I generally viewed LEOs with suspicion and at times, even disdain. Over the past year, now living a very different life and taking more notice of what's happening in this country, I have come to see things very differently. I now tell every officer I come in contact with, even one who writes me a warning ticket, the same thing I tell AD guys I see in uniform around Bragg: "Be safe. And thanks for your service."
I, for one, am now very glad you guys do what you do and I formally apologize for all the times I acted like an asshole towards you. Even that time I was rewarded with four or five quick ones to the face while I was cuffed in the back in Harker Heights, TX. (I was kicking the back of his seat and calling the arresting officer a MFer. I got what I deserved. )
Jeez ... I dunno how you guys do your job anymore, when you have to second guess every action. But I'm glad you do it.
There was a time, not all that long ago either I'm ashamed to say, when I generally viewed LEOs with suspicion and at times, even disdain. Over the past year, now living a very different life and taking more notice of what's happening in this country, I have come to see things very differently. I now tell every officer I come in contact with, even one who writes me a warning ticket, the same thing I tell AD guys I see in uniform around Bragg: "Be safe. And thanks for your service."
I, for one, am now very glad you guys do what you do and I formally apologize for all the times I acted like an asshole towards you. Even that time I was rewarded with four or five quick ones to the face while I was cuffed in the back in Harker Heights, TX. (I was kicking the back of his seat and calling the arresting officer a MFer. I got what I deserved.
Re: Another WTF for LEO's to read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This fact flies directly against your statement that "the System" does not have any responsibility for these officers actions.</div></div> Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never said that the system has no responsibility for the actions of officers. What I said was:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why blame the system for one's failures? That's exactly what criminals do and want they want us to believe. </div></div> I was making an argument for personal and professional responsibility. You are posting from a right-wing point of view but here you are taking a position on personal responsibility that is usually reserved for the left.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Witch Doctor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This where I disagree Graham, it is the assumption that police officers do not think things through, or refuse, or get confused. More specifically the generalities of the statement. Several post back, a reference to the good ole days of kick'n ass and taking names comes to mind.</div></div> It’s important to take what I said in context of the points I was making:
What I said was: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused. </div></div>I very specifically said ‘some’ officers, intentionally not to mean all of them. And it was no assumption on my part. I won’t name names.
Understand that I am not bashing cops, I am arguing for professional responsibility and recognizing that the nature work has changed from what some like to call the ‘good ole days’. What I said was: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div> I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this. Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion. If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.</div></div>I didn’t have you in mind when I said that. What I saw were a few people copping antiquated false macho attitudes on a public forum in lieu of advocating that we better educate ourselves about the profession. Thinking is more of a requirement for a law enforcement officer today than it ever was, which, unfortunately for some, disqualifies them.
You are correct in saying that the individual officer is today permitted less discretion than ever. Real change always takes place in both directions at the same time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Snakum</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jeez ... I dunno how you guys do your job anymore, when you have to second guess every action. But I'm glad you do it.</div></div> My point is that we are hired and paid to do just that. Heaven forbid that I ruffle a few feathers by suggesting that the solution for the individual officer is to better understand the work and the nature of it. Some don’t like working under the constraints. Others would rather have a license to kill. The former should look for less stressful employment and the latter should never have been hired in the first place. But, as I said above, there’s no point in accepting the rank and the role and then complaining about the responsibility. The job is what it is. When someone whines about the politics it tells me that he does not have the emotional maturity necessary to do the job well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This fact flies directly against your statement that "the System" does not have any responsibility for these officers actions.</div></div> Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never said that the system has no responsibility for the actions of officers. What I said was:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why blame the system for one's failures? That's exactly what criminals do and want they want us to believe. </div></div> I was making an argument for personal and professional responsibility. You are posting from a right-wing point of view but here you are taking a position on personal responsibility that is usually reserved for the left.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Witch Doctor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This where I disagree Graham, it is the assumption that police officers do not think things through, or refuse, or get confused. More specifically the generalities of the statement. Several post back, a reference to the good ole days of kick'n ass and taking names comes to mind.</div></div> It’s important to take what I said in context of the points I was making:
What I said was: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just keep in mind that the law and common sense don't always dovetail, and that some law enforcement officers, paid to know the difference, refuse to think the problem through and get confused.
Understand that I am not bashing cops, I am arguing for professional responsibility and recognizing that the nature work has changed from what some like to call the ‘good ole days’. What I said was: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steven Dzupin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ubet,Hits the nail right on the head !!!!!!!!! </div></div> I would like to hear how and why it is that you know this. Regardless, yours is not a useful post: it's a waste of bandwidth to try to irritate people while not contributing substantively to the discussion. If you are looking for someone who wants to reminisce about the 'good old days' and gripe that law enforcement 'ain't what it used to be' because today there is not enough 'ass kicking' and 'name taking' then there are other forums that do a better job of catering to that kind of mediocrity.</div></div>I didn’t have you in mind when I said that. What I saw were a few people copping antiquated false macho attitudes on a public forum in lieu of advocating that we better educate ourselves about the profession. Thinking is more of a requirement for a law enforcement officer today than it ever was, which, unfortunately for some, disqualifies them.
You are correct in saying that the individual officer is today permitted less discretion than ever. Real change always takes place in both directions at the same time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Snakum</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jeez ... I dunno how you guys do your job anymore, when you have to second guess every action. But I'm glad you do it.</div></div> My point is that we are hired and paid to do just that. Heaven forbid that I ruffle a few feathers by suggesting that the solution for the individual officer is to better understand the work and the nature of it. Some don’t like working under the constraints. Others would rather have a license to kill. The former should look for less stressful employment and the latter should never have been hired in the first place. But, as I said above, there’s no point in accepting the rank and the role and then complaining about the responsibility. The job is what it is. When someone whines about the politics it tells me that he does not have the emotional maturity necessary to do the job well.
Similar threads
