Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

You're wrong. We are trained to solve the problem at the lowest possible level of force. It is called force continuum. It begins with words, soft hands, hard hands, impact weapon or pepper spray or tazer, your choice there, and then last, deadly force. No we are not all clowns. Is everyone in your line of work a clown?
Seeashrink

Originally posted by daggyz
Don't know, but it should. There is no reason for anyone to be carrying a weapon. If the Police shot everyone who carried one, no one would a carry one and the streets would be free of that element, either due to fewer weapons, fewer people who carry weapons and both....


I'm not serious, but it would solve a problem.

What a dumb ass sweeping statement.

Here is one equal in merrit. If every one carried a gun, no one would shoot one, because the probability of getting shot back would be to high, and the risk would be deemed to grave.

Sounds great on paper, but there will always be suicidal people that don't care if they die, and hence -- will not actually reduce the problem, but probably exadurate it. If there are 10 people in a room all packing guns, and 1 guy shoots 1 guy, you now have 8 people discharging weapons, you are likely to end up with a higher casualty rate for the simple fact that there will be much more bullets in the air.

Your idea sounds good on paper too, except when you realize that no matter how many people cops shoot, you will never stop people from carrying weapons, infact -- you will likely cause the inverse to happen.

People will assume police are trigger happy, and as such, feel as if they need to protect their lives in such an instance, which would probably result in higher police AND citizen casualty rates.

It's called "Emergent Trends." These are wholly unpredictable outcomes, and usually, as with any experiment.... you will not get your desired result, but rather, something totally unpredictable will happen.

Another great factual representation of this is Gabe Newell's Steam Platform for digital distribution of computer games over the internet.

They sometimes issue sales, up to 90% off. They figured this would give a small boost to game sales, when in actualality it was a major LONG LASTING boost of sales that proceeded even after the sale was over.

You wouldn't imagine that dropping a game to 90% off for 2 days is going to increase the sales of the product once it returns to full price. It does, and nobody understand exactly why.

This is an "emergent trend." Sometimes you have to actually think about the things you say.....

Originally posted by daggyz
Don't know, but it should. There is no reason for anyone to be carrying a weapon. If the Police shot everyone who carried one, no one would a carry one and the streets would be free of that element, either due to fewer weapons, fewer people who carry weapons and both....


I'm not serious, but it would solve a problem.

so, what about when there is no cops and YOU dont have a gun, but the baddie does? you and your loved ones suffer the consequences.

whenever i drive long distances, i have my 12ga in the back seat (slide open- safety on- none in the mag tube or chamber) 00 buck shot/ .70 cal rifled slugs in the glove box, and a bumper sticker that says "keep off my grass".

does that upset you? should i be shot on sight because i carry a weapon? it does stay in my vehicle, but does that mean its concealed? you gun hating freaks make me wanna PUKE.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Revealation

 

Lemme guess... You were in trouble a lot growing up because authority figures wouldnt let you do whatever you wanted right?

If not, please educate all of us how all cops are like that. Please be sure to cite your sources, studies etc so we can go back and verify your opinion, err claim.

In the same manner, you should be able to site sources, studies etc, so we can go back and verify your opions, err, rather claim....

See what I did there?

The bottom line is there is no way to know for sure one way or the other what total % of police are mal-alligned.

There is no supporting evidence on either side of this argument due to the nature of the argument. This however doesn't mean that mal-alligned police don't exist.

The nature of this argument lies within freewill. I exercise mine to not abuse people. And since everyone is different, how do we track this with a metric? You cannot. It's simply 100% impossible with the acception of investigating every single police officer there ever was and will be, which to put it plainly is certainly improbable, nigh -- impossible.

So with that said, your entire point and position on that topic is completely biased rhetoric. Also, ANY law enforcement officer can be a peace officer or law officer, they aren't mutually exclusive, or exclusive to any agency.

A sheriff most certainly CAN do everything that we can do, and we most certainly CAN do anything that they can do. It may be true that different LEA handle fees and fines differently, but you can also attribute that to the over all political position of the angencies in question.

Sheriff's take money for things like filing fee's etc, because they don't make their primary income from locking people up. It's only right, that in America, for you to be provided a service, that service will have a fee associated with it. This fee, assures your continued right to the service.

Police on the otherhand, make most of their money off of incarcerations and fines. And as such, don't charge fee's by the mile. Sheriff are as to Police, as Republicans are to Democrats. They are there for the same reason, but they enforce their ideologies differently.

The perfect analogy to this, is partisanship. You and I are employed by the people who ruin peoples lives..... but here is the thing. I excercise my discretion to the fullest, and since I'm under no lawful obligation to uphold most things that I don't deem necessary -- I DON'T. Unless I deem it necessary.


On a completely different note, I do believe there might be one metric that can prove his case, and that is arrest rates.

The fact 1 in 4 Americans are classed as criminals is just blatant proof of his claim.

65 million adults in the country are criminals? 160 million people in America and 25% of them are criminals... and that number is growing?

Yet, you claim there is no problem with this system?

Originally posted by SirMike
I am a part time LEO. I was trained using the “force pyramid” as a guide on what level of force was and was not acceptable. Basically, it states that an LEO can use one level of force higher than a suspect to get them to comply with a lawful order. The levels of force are verbal, physical, less than lethal, lethal. For example, I ask you to get out of your car and you say no, I can’t shoot you or even use OC spray because you are still at the verbal force level but I can grab you and use physical force to force you to comply. Another example, building on the first: I am now physically removing you from the vehicle and you grab onto your seat to prevent me from removing you … since you still haven’t used physical force on me, I cant break out the ASP, but if you put your hands on me or push me away I can.

The legal standard in my state is anyone with a weapon of any kind within 21’ is fair game.

To answer the question posed by the OP, yes, barring some extraneous circumstances, lethal force can be used on someone wielding a golf club within 21 feet.

Here’s why: www.youtube.com...

The video is a completely flawed. The assailant is instructed to move forward quickly, and the officer is instructed to stay put.

If it's a melee weapon, 21' is more than enough. 10 feet is still plenty. The time it takes to pull a weapon out of a holster designed to hold onto that weapon extra carefully, is much slower than the time it takes for you to also move at the same speed he does backwards.

This is just simply horrible training practices, issued by people with no actual self defense ability. This should never be used as "evidence" to back up why it's right to use lethal force in a situation in which you don't have to.

First, you can taze or pepper spray, AS you are being attacked.

Real life isn't turn based. When some one runs at me, I don't stand my ground literally... this is just silly and dangerous. I do stand my ground, but how do I do this? By maintaing equal space. Every step he takes forward I take back wards. Even if he is faster than me, I'd have more than 1.2 seconds, I can extend this 1.2 seconds into 10-15 minimum, unless he's an olympic runner.....

Yes, there is a danger, yes we accept the possibility and even EXPECT to run into this danger... it is our choice.... We shouldn't turn a blind eye to bad and inefficient practices just because some one made a staged video where the control of the experiment was leveraged to prove their own precedents.....

This is silly.

I'm Full Time LEA. I am also a black belt in taekwondo..... this is a draconian training exorcise that will do nothing but get people killed...

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Revealation

 

.

Sheriff's take money for things like filing fee's etc, because they don't make their primary income from locking people up. It's only right, that in America, for you to be provided a service, that service will have a fee associated with it. This fee, assures your continued right to the service.

Police on the otherhand, make most of their money off of incarcerations and fines. And as such, don't charge fee's by the mile. Sheriff are as to Police, as Republicans are to Democrats. They are there for the same reason, but they enforce their ideologies differently.

edit on 25-3-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

very informative, i live in a very small town with a large corrupt county based government. our county motto is- "Come on vacation, Leave on probation"

anyway, we only have the county sheriff in my neck of the woods, and i have to say; every single one of them are very fair and decent peace officers. they have let me slide on more ridiculous things than i can even imagine... and i have learned my lesson everytime.

however, how screwed up does this sound- there is 2,000 people in the town i live in. there are 8 sheriffs and 5 highway patrols. CRAZY!

edit on 25-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by WJjeeper
*snip*

It's quite a stark contrast to the county I live.

Lee County Florida, Cape Coral.

CCPD has the highest police employment rate per capita in the entire country, and they are still hiring.

We also have a fairly high crime rate, which is totally engineered by what you consider a crime. Tickets and traffic violators are considered criminals, and as a result of having more police our crime rate rises in proportion.

They want to have a high crime rate, so they can make more money for the city, since the city budget is busted.

Also, our city taxes... police get 28% of every dollar, infrastructure gets 2% of every dollar.

Yet... our taxes are supposed to improve our standard of living? It's only making us a true ass police state county.

They are hiring 24/7 all year round. The academy is 14 weeks long.... 30% of the town populace are police officers.

WTF is that?

Originally posted by Laokin
I've had about enough of you now. I've been a lurker here for quite some time, but you however, just made me sign up to point out exactly WHY you are a bad officer AND only breed more hate for officers like me.

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Laokin
Lets just focus on the subject of the "shady character."

It's not against the law to look shady.

This statement alone proves that you do NOT know the law, as most LAW ENFORCERS don't. Did you go to law school? Why does lawschool take 8 years? How could a police officer who has signed up, pushed through his month/2month academy ever understand the law that it takes 8 years to teach?

Right.. Please point out to me what the defintion of shady is. Please point out in law where a person walking down the street, who "looks" shady can be confronted aside from voluntary contact?

Originally posted by Laokin
You don't know the law better than anybody here, and I will attest you missed the entire argument at hand.

In plain English, IT IS ILLEGAL TO LOOK SHADY IF I SAY IT IS[....snip

Its not illegal to look shady. Its not illegal if you say it is either. The contact is voluntary unless you have prior knowledge that justifies contact with the "shady person"

Originally posted by Laokin
If some one were to look "Shady" that entitles me to have "Reasonable Suspicion" ,,,snip

Contact by reasonable suspicion is just that, that you have reasonable suspicion a crime took place. Stopping and detaining a person based on looks with no other supporting facts is in fact a volntary contact.

Originally posted by Laokin Law Officer & Peace Officer. You seem to lack all knowledge on the differences between these two representations of law enforcement. I am a Peace Officer, you are a Law Officer.

There is no difference between the 2, and I have provided that information. To date, the argument people are making is baseless that there is a difference.

Originally posted by Laokinsnip ..
To put it more plainly, we have the power to ruin peoples lives. You also stated earlier in this thread that YOU don't make people break laws. Yet, the contention is that you don't investigate to know for sure if you do or not, and the process of even going to court to defend yourself against a false claim is a blatant case of Public Defamation. Not only this, but in states like FL, where I reside, that are "Right to Work" states -- It's entirely LEGAL AND LAWFUL for an employer to fire an employee for missing the day of work that you had him unlawfully detained.

Going back to my comment about individuals breaking the law who want to blame anyone but themselves for the outcome. Personal responsibility is the term your looking for their chief. Also, Right to work? This fits into the conversation how?

Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

The term you are looking for is - At Will State -

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

Originally posted by Laokin
The effects of this are DRASTIC. ...snip

I did not make the person break the law. If I issue the person a citation, its incumbent on the PA to prove the person is guilty. Since Police have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which the PA runs their case, or what will occur to the person if they are found guilty.

Originally posted by Laokin
If LEO was doing it's job correctly, they would have issued phony traffic stop (which is legal, when you are suspected of conspiracy to perform armed robbery) and nipped it in the bud all together.

Are you drunk or high? Your statement makes no sense. Your examples insinuate that all officers act in the same manner. The term is stereotyping btw, which is EXACTLY what you do when you decide to force contact with a "Shady" individual.

Originally posted by Laokin
The sheer fact that you seem to be backing these same crazy addicts, and claiming to be well versed in law yourself proves your inadequacy to protect people, let alone not infringe on the rights of citizens on America.

Backing who? The officers who violated their Oath and the law? Care to point out exactly where I said that? I have been consistent in other threads that deal with corrupt officers where I have stated they should be charged for what they did. I dont back crooked cops, and most of the people in these forums can confirm that.

Originally posted by Laokin
One LE to another. You don't deserve respect, or your job -- as you justify ruining peoples lives by claiming it's the DA's of the state that do it.

I dont think you are a LEO based on your rant so far. Not only are you demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the law, as well as procedures by law enforcement, your post makes absolutely no sense. Please explain to me how I am ruining a persons life, while on a traffic stop the driver of the vehicle has a open beer can in the cup holder in plain site. How am I ruining that person life when they fail the SFST as well as the breathalyzer?

I did not make the person drink to excess, nor did I make the person get in the car and operate it, nor did I make the person drive in such a manner that got my attention. I cannot force the driver to take the SFST's, nor can I force him to submit to a blood breath or urine smaple.

You choose to break the law, you run the risk of being caught. The term you are looking for here is personal responsibility btw.

Originally posted by Laokin
They base their case on your report. They are an extension of YOU, you aren't an extension of THEM, for there would be no THEM without YOU.

And have the ultimate say on whether they are going to go forward with the case as is, make changes to the charge, or decline to prosecute. The PA IS the deciding factor, not me. Again, if you were really a LEO, you would know this and have a basic understanding of how our judicial system works.

Originally posted by Laokin
You should be ashamed of yourself.

For doing my job? You dont know me from the person next door, nor do you have any clue as to how I perform my job.

Originally posted by Laokin
P.S.

Just to further indicate how poor police officers ruin peoples lives..... Arresting some one who is innocent and forcing them to court -- even if they are found in the court of law to be innocent, can cost some one their job/carreer, which by extension can cost them to lose their home, the legal fee's and the time restrictions of court, 3-36 months of their time, christmas for their kids, planned vacations with loved ones, or even death if they have any kind of bad medical history that stipulates they be on beta blockers or nitro pills because they can no longer afford their medicine because they have a budget that has been significantly reduced by YOUR bad decision making.

Again, I highly doubt that you are in Law Enforcement, or Peace Officer using the uninformed opinions of yourself and a few others on that term, since you would know that every person that we come in contact with ARE innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

If the person loses their job, that is between them and their employer, and that holds even more weight if they reside in at at will state, where no reason is needed to terminate a person. Again, if you were Law Enforcement, you would know this.

Originally posted by Laokin
You are directly the cause of lowering peoples standard quality of living.

I cannot assume responsibility for another persons actions (unless they are acting on my orders, which makes them a LEO at that point). The individual is responsible for their own actions, as well as the outcome of those actions. A company who fires an employee has that ability, and the person fired has access to get their job back or file suit.

Again the term is personal responsibility.

Originally posted by Laokin
How is this in the peoples best interest? It's not, it's in your own. You do it to get paid, and you see them as criminals that get what they deserve. Hence the reason you will never be able to command true respect, because you don't respect the people you command it from.

So if a person breaks the law, is charged, tried and convicted, its not in the peoples intrest how?
Please share with us how much you make at your job? Please tell us how much Fire Fighters make, or IT managers, truck drivers etc etc etc. They all get paid for doing a specific function they were hired to do.

Command true respect - Again, I doubt you are a LEO, because if you were you would know respect is earned.

Originally posted by Laokin
rant that makes no sense

uhm.. yeah

Originally posted by Laokin
As for the hidden weapons argument, how many have you ever seen. I'll bank on none. And if you have, snip.

Again, if you were a LEO you would understand what my point was. Yes, I have come across belt buckle knives, as well as lipstick knives. I have also come across the palm gun, which was located in the person back pocket behind his wallet to avoid detection during the pat down.

Originally posted by Laokin
In short, you're entire line of reasoning is based on a logical flaw, and as such -- is why you command no respect from the citizens you risk your life to supposedly protect.

Respect is earned...

My reasoning is based off the Constitution for the US as well as the State I reside in. Its based off the training I received, from the Academy to now. Its based on the continuing education LEOs go through to maintain their certifications. Its based on court decisions that result in case law.

Originally posted by Laokin
P.S.S.

I apologize for any mispellings or typo's as I spent a lot of time writing this, and am to tired to proof read it at the moment.

edit on 25-3-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

respectfully then, dont respond while you are tired. Your entire post makes absolutely no sense, and is all over the place and at times contradicts itself. You accuse me of things I have never said, nor done, while at the same time declaring something legal when in fact its not legal.

Either or, thanks for the laugh.

reply to post by WJjeeper


Serisouly man, your attempt at debate using obfuscation and a circular argument while completely ignoring the correct information that was provided to you is fail.

I gave you the defintions of Police and Peace, and have provided information about enforcement, and have provided source links for all of it.

You have failed to provide any sources on your claims, other than your own thread which has absolutely no bearing on whats being discussed in this thread. You have completely failed to prove any points you are trying to make, and have done so in such a manner that shows youhave no legal base for your argument.

As I said before, as well as the ranting post person who makes jsut as much sense, saying it over and over does not make it legal or enforceable.

This is your 3rd response now, and liek the previous 2, no sources / supporting documentation / case law.

try again

Originally posted by thov420
Haven't finished reading this thread yet but I had to reply to this as soon as I read this sentence. Would you care to show me in the US Constitution where it says drugs are illegal? There's just the 18th Amendment about alcohol which they realized was a horrible idea.

Why in the world did it take a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal but the Controlled Substances Act just gets to bypass the amendment process?

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution - enumerated powers - specifically the necessary and proper clause.

Prohibition - 8th amendment -

The specific term "Necessary and Proper Clause" was coined in 1926 by Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision in Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), wherein the court upheld a law restricting medicinal use of alcohol as a necessary and proper exercise of power under the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition in the United States.

and

McCulloch v. Maryland
United States v. Comstock
Wickard V. Filburn

reply to post by Laokin


Asking a person to step out of a vehicle is legal, and has been challeneged in court with the result being legal. Again, simply repeating its illegal for an officer to ask a person to step out of the car does not make it reality.

I am amazed that you were able to pass an academy, let alone do the job of Police Officer without violating the law.

I guess the term book smart street stupid is true.

Originally posted by Laokin
In the same manner, you should be able to site sources, studies etc, so we can go back and verify your opions, err, rather claim....

See what I did there?

Make an ass out of yourself by trying to be sarcastic without understaning the conversation - sure did.

Originally posted by Laokin
The bottom line is there is no way to know for sure one way or the other what total % of police are mal-alligned.

Based on your posts to date in this thread, its going to be any Law Enforcement Officer who does not agree with you or the concepts / views you hold. Since those views are based in fantasy land and not reality, youve narrowed it down to almost all Law Enforcement personnel.

Originally posted by Laokin
There is no supporting evidence on either side of this argument due to the nature of the argument. This however doesn't mean that mal-alligned police don't exist.

Supporting evidence has been provided in this thread, along with links to sources, case law, the Constitution, as well as WJ's conspiracy thread.

Originally posted by Laokin
The nature of this argument lies within freewill. I exercise mine to not abuse people. And since everyone is different, how do we track this with a metric? You cannot. It's simply 100% impossible with the acception of investigating every single police officer there ever was and will be, which to put it plainly is certainly improbable, nigh -- impossible.

Failure to take action based on personal beliefs can affect people, and in an adverse way. If you really were a LEO you would know this, as well as be familiar with the stats on this area for Rape, sexual abuse, child abuse etc. Since enforcement of laws, statutes and ordinances can be officer discretion, it must be based on the situation, and not personal feelings.

just because you dont like a law, does not mean you should not enforce it when it directly affects the parties involved. The pupose of an officer is to locate the truth through investigation, locate the truth based on evidence, regardless of where that truth leads and whether or not you agree with it.

You are there to serve the people, not push your views onto others who very well might not see eye to eye with your view.

Originally posted by Laokin
So with that said, your entire point and position on that topic is completely biased rhetoric. Also, ANY law enforcement officer can be a peace officer or law officer, they aren't mutually exclusive, or exclusive to any agency.

A sheriff most certainly CAN do everything that we can do, and we most certainly CAN do anything that they can do. It may be true that different LEA handle fees and fines differently, but you can also attribute that to the over all political position of the angencies in question.

Sheriff's take money for things like filing fee's etc, because they don't make their primary income from locking people up. It's only right, that in America, for you to be provided a service, that service will have a fee associated with it. This fee, assures your continued right to the service.

And this is what I am talking about. You just got done lecturing me on Police vs Peace Officers, then you turn around and say the EXACT same thing I said. Again, are you really a cop? Are you drunk or stoned? Your rants are all over the place. Please take the time to understand what you type beause when you contradict yourself, you lose credibility.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Laokin

 

I am shicked that you were able to pass an academy, let alone do the job of Police Officer without violting the law.

The Chief of Police on Guam actually went and bought a degree online for $9.95.....got caught...and was still confirmed by their Legislature to remain the Chief of Police.

diplomamillnews.blogspot.com...

During his tenure there was a guy grieving over his brothers death at the local cemetary. guam police rolled in and shot him dead in the cemetary. Unarmed man.

The father is a Batan Death March survivor and can't afford to get a high roller lawyer to go after those that killed his son. Both his sons served in Vietnam for America and survived. One died on Guam and the other grieving brother was shot while he was grieving over his brothers grave.

Official story is he pointed a cell phone at the cops so they opened fire. You'd be amazed at how corrupt America's Police enterprise is. There's a retired US Army Sig Intel Officer working as a Professor at the Guam University.....he was made an "Honorary Police Chief" and advises the local PD on tactics and what to do when they screw up...Military Psyops...intelligence on people.....very useful tools.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So basically you're saying the gov't can just arbitrarily decide when they get to make their own laws? That's ridiculous to say the least. I mean come on, in Wickard v. Filburn, the farmer was charged with violating interstate commerce laws by growing wheat for his personal use which would have no commercial impact whatsoever.

It still doesn't answer why it takes a constitutional amendment to make 1 thing illegal but just an act of congress to make other things illegal.

reply to post by Pervius


How is suicide by cop related to "police enteprise":?

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So basically you're saying the gov't can just arbitrarily decide when they get to make their own laws? That's ridiculous to say the least. I mean come on, in Wickard v. Filburn, the farmer was charged with violating interstate commerce laws by growing wheat for his personal use which would have no commercial impact whatsoever.

It still doesn't answer why it takes a constitutional amendment to make 1 thing illegal but just an act of congress to make other things illegal.

You have answered your own question, twice now. Some laws are based on social norms, for example gay marriage, marijuana possession, prostitution etc. At the time alcohol was the perceived bad norm and so it was outlawed by constitutional amendment. The people eventually said we are done with this, and it was repealed.

Just because there is no constitutional amendment that says drugs are illegal, does not make them legal. As stated Congress, as well as the states, can make laws. If the people dont like the law, then vote in representatives who will change it (which we have seen happen in California with marijuana, assisted suicide in oregon, prostitution in Nevada etc.

Laws are a snap shot of history.

Prohibition - 1919
CSA - 1960-70

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra

I must say, even though we disagree with each other.....you have shown everyone that you DO NOT automatically take the LEOs side reguardless........you have remained calm and to the point under a hail of abuse that would have had me foaming at the mouth.

I think if MORE LEOs were like you we would have less of a problem.

Now back to our corners.........lol *ding ding*

First off let me say that "your situational awareness" you talk about is horrible and off by a mile and i'll give you a reason, err....cite a source for you.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

 

please educate all of us how all cops are like that. Please be sure to cite your sources, studies etc so we can go back and verify your opinion, err claim.

No where in my post did I ever insinuate that all cops are/were like that. Here's your source........

Originally posted by Revealation

 

Whoever is waving a gun about should be shot.

Does your reference to "whoever is waving a gun" also apply to

the trigger happy and criminally corrupt pigs

who are walking the fine line of lawman or criminal, who use their corrupt manmade laws to justify their insatiable blood lust to intentionally MURDER another human being because they want to feel what it's like?

It seems to me you let your ego, emotions and personal interests get in the way, which is a problem for alot of police but unfortunately I don't have a source for you. This is just my personal observation and opinion from people I deal with in life.

If you notice I said "the trigger happy and criminally corrupt ones".....So from your detective work and situational awareness...I would like to know how you come to the conclusion of all cops?

Is it the classic case of shoddy police work and making the case fit the crime or the typical power trip ego that makes MANY cops get easily offended?

I say a combo of both but can give you a definitive answer that shoddy police work is a DEFINITE cause.........Here's your source right from your own mouth

Originally posted by Xcathdra

 

Lemme guess... You were in trouble a lot growing up because authority figures wouldnt let you do whatever you wanted right?

First thing is you guessed.Where are the actual facts?You know like citing sources for the movie scenes in your mind of how people were eyeballing you in stores and restuarants and when the comprehension came on their faces how you left the store.... The suspense of this crime drama is killing me...what happens next?

If most cops would do actual police work and get out of the fantasy, movie image tough guy (in their own heads) maybe they could do actual police work...cause as I like to state the only thing MOST cops are good for is coming to arrest you or to take you away in a body bag.

I'll be the 1st to tell you I judge you cops as they judge us civilians,err, or is it criminals, just that I at least have the common decency to treat everyone decent until their actions or accusations prove otherwise.

Situational awareness, I agree, Bruce Lee also taught that you should know your surroundings and to be honest it's a natural instinct in survival and is something we are born with. Unfortunately most need to be taught it because they been domesticated and trained to the point of a useless puppet stripped of what it took nature centuries to evolve and dependent on people who don't actuallly protect them but instead violate the very people.

As far as I'm concerned and I'm sure many agree (especially the ones who make the law).We need structure and control to maintain society but MANMADE laws are nothing more than a TOOL used to control and opress society while it plunders and robs them blind to create revenue for the people who made the laws. Only problem is it's the weak who make the laws. they figured a system to control the strong. It would be like squirrels controlling lions in nature.

The law doesn't apply to the people who make it most of the time and I won't cite sources because we see it everyday and there's too many too list.When it does apply there's always a loophole for them and if not, they make a new law to compensate for it. Most cops probably don't even know a 1/4 of the laws and arrest people for the TYPICAL basic B.S. most cops are trained to do.

Fact is when people who are trained in, study and uphold the law commit a crime they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law without leniency. As a matter of fact since they were trained in and manipulated the law, they should have even harsher sentences since they deceived the people they were entrusted to protect.

As far as i'm concerned, I don't need or give people dominion over my life to protect me or rule me. I have always been the one to protect myself and my family and never needed anyone.By the time I do my kids will have taken over the reigns as protectors.

You're gang is just making more and more enemies everyday by their actions. This is why you feel as if people are after you.Guilty conscience.

Proverbs 28 The wicked man flees from no pursuer.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
In Tenn V Gardner a Memphis cop shot someone running away from a suspected burglary....cant do that anymore...only if the person has shown a demonstrated tendency towards hurting someone as in just shot a store clerk and may shoot someone else IN THE OFFICERS JUDGEMENT AT THE TIME.....shooting someone "in the leg" just isnt done for a variety of reasons......as for shooting soemone in your house,or dragging them inside after shooting,that law varies from state to state...in Texas for example you can shoot them in your yard...in my state the recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" removed the requirement to retreat if possible...if you are inside your home you are allowed to stand your ground and use deadly force to defend same...anyone who shoots to wound a burglar at 2am is askin for trouble...Id rather be sued by a dead mans family than by a crippled man who can get on a stand in front of a jury of his peers and whine about how it was all a misunderstanding...he was drunk and tried to climb in the wrong window or some such nonsense...and rest assured,if you shoot,you WILL be sued by someone...may as well take one side of the story out of play...and NEVER disturb a crime scene by moving a body...thats just dumb...as for standing on your "rights" by refusing to obey an officer,as in not getting out of a car...you always have that right of course....but if you get TASED or sprayed and arrested for non compliance its on you...in my state the law is clear....since I dont go around committing crimes or smoking dope or drinking while driving I dont mind letting the guy see whats inside...only a dumba*s asks for serious physical and financial trouble when it can be easily avoided...no law will change or policy alter because you choose to ask for an electric ride....but like I said.you always have the choice...

reply to post by Homedawg


So you don't mind being treated like a criminal, because you aren't a criminal? Sad the way people have been brainwashed to think these days...