• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Balancing Officer Safety and Citizen Safety

I don't know much about policing in areas outside my state, but in NJ, the vast majority of police 'on the road' handle the job well. I become increasingly concerned when you go up the chain of command though...not that police (or prosecutors) are any different than any other state or municipal entity in terms of corruption rates, it's just they have real power to impact other's lives and freedoms.

If I'm ever stopped in my car and the officer elects to do a felony takedown... I'm going to comply 100%. If I'm ever being followed by a police officer that concerns me, I'm going to pull into the nearest police station. I want that officer as calm and relaxed as possible.

I've been on scene in an urban setting where LE / civilian conflicts have gone down... it's like the wild west where the lawman is the only one in town. I give these guys credit, It's some scary sh%t. The reason cops get all nervous is because it really feels like people are coming out of the woodwork from every direction, screaming and acting all weird... sometimes, bad stuff does go down and you do not want to be playing catch up when that happens. They are trained to dominate the situation...so they do. If you want a force that does more dying and less shooting, you are going to have to pay a lot more in taxes to get it. The cheapest way to fix this problem is to set a standard for bystander conduct that comes with life altering consequences.. when the mobs of people that turn out to scream and act stupid on urban streets start paying consequences that hurt them ($$), then the police will be able to relax and work more effectively. These guys (and girls) work for us... we need to construct a work environment that doesn't set them up as adversaries.

While we are talking about LE safety, how about we start talking about the crap that goes down in prisons... I think once you are CONVICTED as a felon, a whole different standard should come into play in terms of how you get treated... Felons that act out, throw feces, etc... need some 'roman' justice...it's ridiculous that the jailers have to feel unsafe or put up with that shit... cut off a hand when they throw feces.
 
This topic came up the other day. Anyone see that fiasco in Florida? 377 bullets fired at 2 men by 23 officers?

From my research on the topic this is a list of what constitutes a threat to a LEO.
Child with an airsoft gun = threat, execute
Child with a Wii remote = threat, execute
Dog playing with children in its own yard = threat, shoot yourself in leg
2 old ladies delivering newspapers = threat, fire over 100 rounds at them
homeless man on ground begging for life = threat, execute
2 pitbulls encountered while breaking into a house = threat, execute
Man entering his car to get his cigarettes = threat, only wound due to poor aim

If a good man enforces unjust laws and defends the actions of a person that did wrong, he is no longer a good man. I have heard many cops say "I don't agree with the laws", yet they still wear the badge.
 
No they just require them to enforce every law. I bet they hung lots of nazi's that didn't agree with all of hitler laws but still enforced them.
First of all, it's 'hanged': Being hung is a good thing; but being hanged, not so much.

Second, guilt regarding war crimes is not a subjective standard: It has nothing to do with the perpetrator's personal opinion of the law.
 
First of all, it's 'hanged': Being hung is a good thing; but being hanged, not so much.

Second, guilt regarding war crimes is not a subjective standard: It has nothing to do with the perpetrator's personal opinion of the law.

Ah but what about the actions of the German police and the Gestapo? They were tried at Nuremberg for actions against civilians correct?
 
Graham, this is a very interesting philosophical turn of events. On one hand, an individual can make a moral choice not to enforce laws they deem unjust, but then would probably have to find new jobs, losing pensions, and worrying about keeping their families supported or in the case of Socrates face certain death or ostracization and left to fend for oneself in the very objectively cruel world of mother nature. On the other hand, they can keep enforcing them and live with whatever emotional and psychological torment that may cause them as they would rather bear the suffering internally than let their loved ones face it externally. I'm a single man but well aware how the stakes change when one has a family to tend to.

I think the one guilt factor you are overlooking is the degree to what the member culture and organizations can effect the guilt of the man stuck in this moral dilemma. I doubt Marduk's diatribes are inducing feelings of guilt in anyone, however there are many more reasonable people here who seem quite a bit concerned with how things have been going. You may have certain departments who in officer training prefer a more paramilitary approach, and indoctrinate their trainees with the view that perhaps their job is more dangerous than it really is, or others that may tend a rosier view of the world and fail to prepare officers for very real and dangerous threats they may face. Either way, there is a very diverse set of conflicting influences determining if the moral dilemma posed earlier even exists, and if it does how it should be handled.
 
"Paramilitary approach"

The cop in California was a veteran of the Iraq war and advocated treating the urban areas of la and other places with high crime rates like war zones. His attitude led to him murdering a little boy with an airsoft gun.
 
First of all, it's 'hanged': Being hung is a good thing; but being hanged, not so much.

Second, guilt regarding war crimes is not a subjective standard: It has nothing to do with the perpetrator's personal opinion of the law.

"Hung jury", "hung parliament"... Ha ha

By your own point in the second paragraph those police who choose to enforce legal laws are themselves criminals regardless of their 'reluctance'.

Language and hypotheticals aside. The ONLY lesson to learn is this. Had the Germans not lost the wart here wouldn't have been any trials. Had the Germans not been resisted, there wouldn't have been a war.
 
Bump

How about this. Before you slam someone's elderly mother against the garage so hard that she falls to the ground, why don't you ask her for her I.D. and the vehicle registration and when that proves she is the legal owner of the car and a resident at that address you apologize for any inconvenience and go about your business. Doesn't that sound so much better than almost murdering her innocent son? Was his mother really a threat to officer safety?
 
How about this. Before you slam someone's elderly mother against the garage so hard that she falls to the ground, why don't you ask her for her I.D. and the vehicle registration and when that proves she is the legal owner of the car and a resident at that address you apologize for any inconvenience and go about your business. Doesn't that sound so much better than almost murdering her innocent son? Was his mother really a threat to officer safety? Why is it that some officers think it's ok to slam women around on her own property? I bet that same officer beats his own wife or girlfriend. Disgustingly stupid display of police work. I don't hate cops either, but dumb as fuck, is dumb as fuck.
99% of LE are great and would not have done that to that family. The problem with the 99% they will protect the 1% at all cost.
Their training officers know what kind of officers they will be. Their partners know how they are. Their supervisors know how they are. Yet the 99% loads the guns for these guys and hold the door open for these guys to go hurt innocent people.
The 99% looks like the 1%. The public believes them all to be the 1%.
 
Last edited:
99% of LE are great and would not have done that to that family. The problem with the 99% they will protect the 1% at all cost.
Their training officers know what kind of officers they will be. Their partners know how they are. Their supervisors know how they are. Yet the 99% loads the guns for these guys and hold the door open for these guys to go hurt innocent people.
The 99% looks like the 1%. The public believes them all to be the 1%.

If it looks like a turd; if it smells like a turd; if it covers up for a turd.........
 
This topic came up the other day. Anyone see that fiasco in Florida? 377 bullets fired at 2 men by 23 officers?

From my research on the topic this is a list of what constitutes a threat to a LEO.
Child with an airsoft gun = threat, execute
Child with a Wii remote = threat, execute
Dog playing with children in its own yard = threat, shoot yourself in leg
2 old ladies delivering newspapers = threat, fire over 100 rounds at them
homeless man on ground begging for life = threat, execute
2 pitbulls encountered while breaking into a house = threat, execute
Man entering his car to get his cigarettes = threat, only wound due to poor aim

If a good man enforces unjust laws and defends the actions of a person that did wrong, he is no longer a good man. I have heard many cops say "I don't agree with the laws", yet they still wear the badge.

I second this motion...