Holding LEO to a higher standard?? What's your view

TripleX

cadman wrote: »

Should they follow the law they are sworn to upheld, yes they should. Should they be disciplined for violating the law and held liable civilly and criminally that any other person should be, yes they should. Do you fire a person for suspicion or because a person filed a complaint? No you should not. You evaluate the evidence and then make a decision. Some times they need to be removed from the job for safety reasons. They are suspended for a brief time period. I think union rules require they be paid.

Do cops speed, sure they do. Most of us speed every day and don't get caught. I haven't seen one do much more than 5 or 10 over. I know, here, a cop can lose pay or his job for violating the traffic laws. Sometimes they do it as part of their job but you don't know it. I saw a motorcycle cop weaving in and out of traffic once that I knew. the next time I saw him I asked about it knowing I would be ticketed. He explained his reasons, which were legit, but something I was not aware of at the time.

Now, let us get to the real question. When should a cop use force. that is really what this is about. You think cops should only shoot after bullets have been fired at them. Unless there is a direct threat with a gun pointed at the cop and the bad guy says "I am going to kill you" or starts pulling the trigger a cop should not fire his weapon. You think criminals carry guns for protection and not to use in a criminal activity. I think once a suspect pulls any kind of weapon out when an officer is present, he should be shot. The officer is having a conversation with that person for a reason. They pull a weapon it is not for good intentions.

In fact I will go a step further and say if I stop you leaving my store because I saw you steal something and you pull a weapon, I will shoot you. I will not wait on you to point it at me or decide to use it on me. You are a threat to me at that point and I will eliminate the threat.

Does that answer your question?

Well said Cad!!

cadman

Dronephoto wrote: »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/florida-cop-paid-leave-tasing-62-year-woman/


http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-12-14/news/fl-editorial-police-gs1212-20121214_1_police-officers-police-supervisors-shifts
OR HOW ABOUT WHEN COPS ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THIS?? IMHO fired immediately




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The cop was suspended without pay for 30 days and required to go through additional training. If it his first and only offense it sounds fair.

gandrfab

I don't even remember their names I went to cop party at an up state NY hunting camp with a few central NJ cops, I did not belong I should not have went I got about 2 hours of sleep in 4 days. coked up pot smoke'n bar fight start'n trouble makers the lot of them. Was a good time but I would turn it down if asked again.

Austins26

great conversation/debate great replies by all if I had to answer the ? with just one word that word would be "Yes"

chubasco

Dronephoto wrote: »

X2 a sense of humor is a must


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Even cops can have one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26Ll9q77Pw

fishknut

chubasco wrote: »

Even cops can have one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26Ll9q77Pw

LOL, good one chub. I had a DUI arrestee one time who when the DUI tech asked her to blow into the device refused because it looked like a ****. The arrestee kept yelling "I aint sticking no **** in my mouth", it was very difficult to not laugh but I held it in.

[email protected] Special

chubasco wrote: »

Bottom line is that cops just are not paid that much given the dangers of the job. If they can't get the job perk of being able to get away with shooting black people then we will have to pay them more. It's like the priests diddling the little boys. Once we took the job perk away no one wanted to be priests anymore so now there's a shortage.

That is one screwed up opinion!

But then we have learned to expect that from you......

Dronephoto

cadman wrote: »

Should they follow the law they are sworn to upheld, yes they should. Should they be disciplined for violating the law and held liable civilly and criminally that any other person should be, yes they should. Do you fire a person for suspicion or because a person filed a complaint? No you should not. You evaluate the evidence and then make a decision. Some times they need to be removed from the job for safety reasons. They are suspended for a brief time period. I think union rules require they be paid.
### I'm not stating they should be fired before found guilty re read my previous posts. So I agree they should not.
The evidence is necessary in being found guilty to make the decision so we agree
I understand the safety concern and IMO that's fine. So that's addressed and we pretty much agree.

Do cops speed, sure they do. Most of us speed every day and don't get caught. I haven't seen one do much more than 5 or 10 over. I know, here, a cop can lose pay or his job for violating the traffic laws. Sometimes they do it as part of their job but you don't know it. I saw a motorcycle cop weaving in and out of traffic once that I knew. the next time I saw him I asked about it knowing I would be ticketed. He explained his reasons, which were legit, but something I was not aware of at the time.
### I understand that their job sometimes requires them to speed and maneuver through traffic.
Wouldn't it make sense though from the general publics view that LEO should have lights and sirens on if the situation calls for them to use speed and maneuver to respond?
What was his response that was legit enough for him to drive that way to respond let alone do it recklessly on a motorcycle that he didn't need to have his lights and sirens on?
So we kinda disagree there

Now, let us get to the real question. When should a cop use force. that is really what this is about. You think cops should only shoot after bullets have been fired at them. Unless there is a direct threat with a gun pointed at the cop and the bad guy says "I am going to kill you" or starts pulling the trigger a cop should not fire his weapon. You think criminals carry guns for protection and not to use in a criminal activity. I think once a suspect pulls any kind of weapon out when an officer is present, he should be shot. The officer is having a conversation with that person for a reason. They pull a weapon it is not for good intentions.
### so no this isn't my real question but something I have addressed. And from your responses we agree

In fact I will go a step further and say if I stop you leaving my store because I saw you steal something and you pull a weapon, I will shoot you. I will not wait on you to point it at me or decide to use it on me. You are a threat to me at that point and I will eliminate the threat.
### this I think ends up being a legal debate you will have to pay to debate for you to keep you a free and right Bering citizen. I completely understand eliminating a threat but your understanding of that is askew IMO.


Does that answer your question?

### I think we're getting somewhere so :cheers

cadman wrote: »

The cop was suspended without pay for 30 days and required to go through additional training. If it his first and only offense it sounds fair.

:roll eyes that's nonsense and we'll just outright nonsense lol additional training and 30 days W/0 pay yeah ok I'll let that suffice as punishment in your opinion.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

pottydoc

chubasco wrote: »

Bottom line is that cops just are not paid that much given the dangers of the job.

Being a cop usually doesn't even make it into the top ten dangerous jobs. Working in commercial construction is more dangerous, has waaaaay less benefits, and way less job security.

Yes, they should be held to a higher standard.

cadman

Dronephoto wrote: »

### I think we're getting somewhere so :cheers


:roll eyes that's nonsense and we'll just outright nonsense lol additional training and 30 days W/0 pay yeah ok I'll let that suffice as punishment in your opinion.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm reminded of an old story where a new employee makes a mistake that cost his company $1000. He gets called into the boss's office expecting to be fired. He walks into the boss's office and says "I'm sorry, please don't fire me" the boss says "I just spent $1000 for you to learn a lesson, why would I fire you, I just want to be sure you understand it won't happen again".

The police department could fire him, find another rookie and hope the same mistake doesn't happen or they can, probably correctly, assume that officer will never make that mistake again. The D.A. said the officer did nothing illegal. The department said he did not follow procedure.

Dronephoto

cadman wrote: »

I'm reminded of an old story where a new employee makes a mistake that cost his company $1000. He gets called into the boss's office expecting to be fired. He walks into the boss's office and says "I'm sorry, please don't fire me" the boss says "I just spent $1000 for you to learn a lesson, why would I fire you, I just want to be sure you understand it won't happen again".

The police department could fire him, find another rookie and hope the same mistake doesn't happen or they can, probably correctly, assume that officer will never make that mistake again. The D.A. said the officer did nothing illegal. The department said he did not follow procedure.

You can't believe that because you also stated you would kill someone to eliminate a threat from someone who stole from your store (which I'm sure was way less than 1000)
The police department should fire that LEO IMO as stated blah blah... You don't seem to understand that the PUBLIC who technically employs the LEO shouldn't have to worry about that LEO acting that way first time, second, blah blah LEO shouldn't ever act out of line and when found guilty of that. As trump would say best YOUR FIRED! lol
If I got aggressive with a taser on a 62 year old lady regardless the situation what do you think the outcome would be? 30 days in the hole.... And some training on how to be ethical and that tasers hurt. :grin



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

cadman

First off, you do not understand analogies. Secondly, the officer was not guilty of any crimes. He was punished for not following department procedures.

I do not know all the details and neither do you. If a 62 year old woman started fighting with you (she did resist arrest) and you had a tazer, your choice would be to tazer her or physically try to restrain her. Either one could result in her injury. Would you prefer to hit the old woman or are you going to stand there and let her hit on you until she gets tired?

Unless you just walked up to the old woman and tazed her for no reason, I doubt you would get arrested. If she started to fight you and you tazed her, you might get arrested, but highly unlikely of a conviction once the truth came out. Self defense does not depend on age. The most would likely be PTI (pre trial intervention with the promise to be good in the future). You would need to be selling drugs, repeat offender, or use a deadly weapon to get any jail time these days.

TripleX

pottydoc wrote: »

Being a cop usually doesn't even make it into the top ten dangerous jobs. Working in commercial construction is more dangerous, has waaaaay less benefits, and way less job security.

Yes, they should be held to a higher standard.

In comparison, yes, construction work per 100X workers is more dangerous than that of law enforcement, but when you compare the type of danger, they are far from being the same...

How many construction workers were killed by gunfire?
How many construction workers were assaulted while working?
How many fisherman were drowned by a fish?
How many loggers were targeted by a falling tree?


Some of the danger in the top ten of the most dangerous professions is "predictable" in nature... Meaning, if you climb a high rise and fail to use safety tethers and lose your footing on a beam, you can predict the fall will result in your death! If you're a lineman and fail to use appropriate ASTM class of high voltage gloves, you can predict that you'll likely get electrocuted!! If you choose to go fishing in inclement weather, you can predict that you may encounter waves that may capsize your vessel!! If you saw down a tree and fail to direct its fall away from you, you can predict that it may crush you to death!! Point is, if you follow established guidelines that have been proven to keep you safe in most, if not all, listed professions in the top ten, you're likelihood of death or injury is greatly reduced if not eliminated...

The same can not be said when dealing with fellow humans... No matter how many hours of training we provide LEO's on Behavior Pattern Recognition or other behavioral training which is likely to give some insight on what a person might do, we have yet to master the art of "mind reading"!! It is all but impossible to know that the person we are about to or are dealing with has the intentions of causing us harm, hence why LEO's receive hours of officer safety training to better prepare them for that one encounter where a person may intend on harming them or taking their life... Many ask or wonder why an officer acts a certain way when dealing with them under certain circumstances, the short answer, history has proven that people are "unpredictable" and if you fail to follow safety measures which increase you chance of surviving the encounter, rest assured, you're likely to have your name engraved on the wall of the fallen before you!!

gandrfab

How many construction workers were assaulted while working?

Have you worked around/with construction workers? Fighting can be a daily occurrence

tankard

pottydoc wrote: »

Being a cop usually doesn't even make it into the top ten dangerous jobs. Working in commercial construction is more dangerous, has waaaaay less benefits, and way less job security.

Yes, they should be held to a higher standard.

This sums it up.

There is no other profession that has so much control over others.

With power comes responsibility.