To Protect and to Serve II

#7,477
#7,477
MercyPercy said:
Huff's image communicates the very thing that frustrates me perhaps the most- the double standard regarding the police's actions versus regular citizens' actions in high stress situations. Why are they given so much more leeway than regular citizens when they have actually been trained and are paid to handle those situations professionally and not emotionally? It's ass backwards.
Click to expand...
We were discussing the idea of “stop resisting” and what it takes to cause someone to get “combative”. If you and I know each other and I suddenly grab you by the collar of your shirt or grab you under your arm your immediate reflex is to tense up. And that’s two friends who are familiar with each other and know neither means the other harm. Now imagine a stranger with a gun doing that. A situation with law enforcement is almost always stressful for one reason or another so people’s emotions are already elevated. All a cop needs to deploy force in excess of your “resistance” is you to tense up or naturally resist their action. But your resistance is a reflex. So it’s basically 100% guaranteed if a cop touches you you’re getting manhandled unless you can figure out a way to make yourself go limp or unconscious.

I’ve had a gun pointed at me one time in my life, and it was by a cop. I was less scared than I was simply mad. I can see how something like that could easily end up fatal for the untrained citizenry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,486
#7,486
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I still have insurance.
Click to expand...
I do too. And when I was broken into and filed two claims in two years, I was cancelled. I had to raise my deductible four times and my premium trippled. You would experience the same all because of someone not being responsible for their own actions.
 
#7,487
#7,487
InVOLuntary said:
I do too. And when I was broken into and filed two claims in two years, I was cancelled. I had to raise my deductible four times and my premium trippled. You would experience the same all because of someone not being responsible for their own actions.
Click to expand...
It happens. Your story actually mirrors mine. I had a break in back in 2010 and they took a bunch of stuff (guns, jewelry, electronics)
Same year my lady accidentally set fire to the kitchen. State Farm made me whole and promptly canceled me. I had to pay a ridiculous premium to travelers insurance for two years until I could swap over to Allstate.
 
#7,488
#7,488
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It happens. Your story actually mirrors mine. I had a break in back in 2010 and they took a bunch of stuff (guns, jewelry, electronics)
Same year my lady accidentally set fire to the kitchen. State Farm made me whole and promptly canceled me. I had to pay a ridiculous premium to travelers insurance for two years until I could swap over to Allstate.
Click to expand...
I would have been better off eating the loss. I paid for it 2X over.
 
#7,490
#7,490
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It happens. I learned a lot from my experience. I went full tilt on security, cameras, motion sensors the whole 9.
Click to expand...
I'm going through it again now at my business. They're stealing scrap aluminum and other stuff from outside. We've been able to identify them with our security camera footage. Cops say that's not good enough. Need to catch them with the goods. I think we have some evidence now and the detective said he's about to issue arrest warrants. It turns out to be the same guy from last time. Spent 8 years in prison. Got out last summer.
 
#7,491
#7,491
InVOLuntary said:
I'm going through it again now at my business. They're stealing scrap aluminum and other stuff from outside. We've been able to identify them with our security camera footage. Cops say that's not good enough. Need to catch them with the goods. I think we have some evidence now and the detective said he's about to issue arrest warrants. It turns out to be the same guy from last time. Spent 8 years in prison. Got out last summer.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to hear that, it’s unfortunate. Put up an electric fence. There are two types of people in this world with 0 redeeming value, liars and thieves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and InVOLuntary
#7,495
#7,495
hndog609 said:
I think the DUI thing might not be assigned the right context in some people's minds. At issue is the overt public safety risk associated with impaired driving. Cars aren't the issue. Alcohol isn't the issue. Being drunk isn't the issue. Being chemically impaired while operating thousands of pounds of rolling potential death in the public domain is a direct action unambiguously associated with greatly increasing the likelihood of harm. While we're talking context let's consider the previously cited 70%/30% fatality figures. Let's ruminate on that for a moment. Consider all the gazillions of miles driven by all those people out there and 1 in 3'ish fatalities are alcohol related? That sounds like a huge overrepresentation to me.

Consider being out in public and someone just starts randomly shooting. Now we can't tell what this person's intent might be and he hasn't actually shot anyone yet. Hell, we don't know if he was going to ever shoot anyone. Do we just wait? Does somebody have to actually be shot before it's any big deal? If you were there and had a gun and some bullets whizzed past you and your wife/child/gf do you think you'd be justified in shooting back with lethal intent? If you killed them given that scenario how likely do you think you'd be charged with murder and why/why not?

I'm pretty high on freedoms associated with one's own dealings but public roads are not your own dealings. (the whole public thing) Becoming intoxicated and putting yourself behind the wheel is a direct line of action and volition that needlessly puts people that aren't you at risk. Trying to keep them off the roads prior to getting people killed isn't a terribly difficult thing to justify IMO.
Click to expand...
You bring up a great point about public roads that is probably the validation of DUI laws. imo.
 
#7,496
#7,496
utvols88 said:
You bring up a great point about public roads that is probably the validation of DUI laws. imo.
Click to expand...
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#7,497
#7,497
ob79 said:
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
Click to expand...
What do you think about DUI checkpoints? Do you see them as a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I think police should absolutely be able to stop someone that appears to be an impaired driver even if there hasn’t been property damage or injury. I’m not a fan of roadblocks unless there is a manhunt underway.
 
#7,498
#7,498
ob79 said:
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
Click to expand...

If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instaed of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Rasputin_Vol and tennvols77
#7,499
#7,499
davethevol said:
What do you think about DUI checkpoints? Do you see them as a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I think police should absolutely be able to stop someone that appears to be an impaired driver even if there hasn’t been property damage or injury. I’m not a fan of roadblocks unless there is a manhunt underway.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

I have no problem with a cop pulling over someone swerving or driving recklessly. But that should be the charge, reckless driving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Rasputin_Vol and RikidyBones
#7,500
#7,500
hog88 said:
If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instead of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.
Click to expand...

Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top