To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,004
#6,004
Question for the LEOs/former LEOs. If you were on duty and witnessed a man run up on his girl friend and do this, would you immediately arrest him and charge him with assault?
 
#6,005
#6,005
Dr Dread said:
Question for the LEOs/former LEOs. If you were on duty and witnessed a man run up on his girl friend and do this, would you immediately arrest him and charge him with assault?
Click to expand...

Depends.

If she didn't have the sammich made on time, that's on her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,007
#6,007
FLVOL_79 said:
See bold..

correct answer: To church officer I have to pray.

Conclusion? Slow down


See..when you become an a-hole to a cop right away..and lets not forget they are a-holes..you're just gonna get sh!t on.

1. Obey the law
2. Turn that sh!t down
3. Never ride with an angry woman
4. get a white friend
Click to expand...

wtf are you saying?
 
#6,011
#6,011
Grand Vol said:
Right...

Did you not see the narrow parameters I added later?
Click to expand...

Show me 3 actual cases were your parameters would have applied and prevented injury or loss of life.
The government its various agencies have a way of adopting policies and procedures with "narrow parameters", then broadening there use through loopholes and technicallies. Unless there is an existing and compelling need to restrict the public's ability monitor and record the policing of our communities, I see no need for such policies.
Policy base hypotheticals is policy made for abuse.
 
#6,012
#6,012
Grand Vol said:
Depends.

If she didn't have the sammich made on time, that's on her.
Click to expand...

You had 4 choices here:

Admit that you would have arrested him.

Lie

Remain silent.

Make a joke about it.

You are not the silent type.

Everyone would've seen thru it if you chose to lie (and to be fair to you, you do tend to try to be as honest as possible on here from what I can tell).

So you tried to joke about it rather than give a straight answer. Then you wonder why people make the 90% comments and believe you won't take the hardline stance against piss poor police conduct like you will against other things you disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,013
#6,013
Carl Pickens said:
This was the third run in with the cops in the last year...... I'm sure he's just unlucky
Click to expand...

I cant tell from that video whether he is resisting. If you're honest you'd admit you can't either. And we know nothing of what happened in these other alleged incidents.

The real problem here is he's not getting progress with his mental illness. Maybe no one is at fault. But be honest how many times have you been going about your business only to have some guy like this just start acting out or ranting, and you wish someone would do something about the guy who you fear is seconds away from a meltdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,014
#6,014
Dr Dread said:
You had 4 choices here:

Admit that you would have arrested him.

Lie

Remain silent.

Make a joke about it.

You are not the silent type.

Everyone would've seen thru it if you chose to lie (and to be fair to you, you do tend to try to be as honest as possible on here from what I can tell).

So you tried to joke about it rather than give a straight answer. Then you wonder why people make the 90% comments and believe you won't take the hardline stance against piss poor police conduct like you will against other things you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Either you:

Chuckled

Did not chuckle and showed a complete lack of sense of humor.

Now here's my evasive answers. I cannot understand for the life of me why you would think I would lie first off. Yet you did say I "tend" to be honest. I'm not sure exactly where I haven't been as I guarantee you can't find one instance of me telling a lie that wasn't meant in jest, but anyway...

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure why you, and others, automatically assume that 90% mark. And I'll put out a challenge to you and anyone else out there to go back and find some hard stats on it. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary number that comes from the same place all arbitrary numbers come from. And generally smells the same as well. Now sometimes I think some people take my lack of response on everything that gets posted in this thread as tacit approval. Not the case at all. If I don't have anything to add, why add anything? Hence your assumption of silence was actually spot on until you directly asked me. There's generally enough outrage from other posters without me adding my brush into the tar and getting the feathers off the chicken. Which brings me to the direct answer you are looking for...

If you are referring to the umbrella guy, I do think the cops were out of line from what I saw. I honestly didn't watch the entire video (the lady screeching was really annoying) but from what I saw there obviously was excessive force being used. Now, as a matter of being a thorough kinda guy, I would like to know the entire history here and why they showed up with six (or eight, lost count) cops on scene. And the preceding five to ten minutes of the response that didn't get shown in the video. Because contrary to popular belief, cops generally have better things to do than roll up in force on a guy with an umbrella that's too big. As I've said before (and probably will again eventually) there's likely more to the story here that isn't being reported. So it does pique my interest as to why they would bring a half dozen or more officers as it's unusual to say the least. And likely there is something here that's missing from the equation.

I hope I've answered your question in a sufficient manner.
 
#6,015
#6,015
I don't think cops understand how big of a pr hurdle they have to overcome with the public. 95% of most people's interaction with cops is negative/punitive, so obviously, they are going to have resentment towards them. If cops would spend less time looking for busted blinkers, rolling stops, jaywalkers, ounces of weed, or hiding behind signs and bushes looking for people driving 39 mph in a 25, they would have fewer negative encounters with the public and an overall better appreciation for what they do. But right now, they are at the point of the spear and the face of an ever increasing state that just smothers person freedom and liberty. We've actually had cops kill people over loose cigarettes, not walking on the sidewalk, broken taillights, expired tags, etc in the last year or so. I wish I would see the day when cops would brag about the drop in tickets, citations and fines they've done from one year to the next or just come out and say that they are not going to enforce laws that do not result in crimes (damage to life, limb or property).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,016
#6,016
lawgator1 said:
But be honest how many times have you been going about your business only to have some guy like this just start acting out or ranting, and you wish someone would do something about the guy who you fear is seconds away from a meltdown.
Click to expand...

If we stop filling up the jail cells with men behind on child support, simple drug possession charges and various other non-violent offenses and providing them with cable tv and 3 hots and a cot, we would have the money and resources to address these people and get them the care they need.
 
#6,017
#6,017
Rasputin_Vol said:
I don't think cops understand how big of a pr hurdle they have to overcome with the public. 95% of most people's interaction with cops is negative/punitive, so obviously, they are going to have resentment towards them. If cops would spend less time looking for busted blinkers, rolling stops, jaywalkers, ounces of weed, or hiding behind signs and bushes looking for people driving 39 mph in a 25, they would have fewer negative encounters with the public and an overall better appreciation for what they do. But right now, they are at the point of the spear and the face of an ever increasing state that just smothers person freedom and liberty. We've actually had cops kill people over loose cigarettes, not walking on the sidewalk, broken taillights, expired tags, etc in the last year or so. I wish I would see the day when cops would brag about the drop in tickets, citations and fines they've done from one year to the next or just come out and say that they are not going to enforce laws that do not result in crimes (damage to life, limb or property).
Click to expand...

95%?

Huh? Sounds made up.

And of course even if people are annoyed that they got a ticket, that doesn't mean the officer was wrong to issue it.

There is a pr problem, I'll agree. I guess we need more of them having buildings come crashing down on them, or getting shot by people with warrants during traffic stops, for you to get the warm and fuzzies again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,018
#6,018
Grand Vol said:
Either you:

Chuckled

Did not chuckle and showed a complete lack of sense of humor.

Now here's my evasive answers. I cannot understand for the life of me why you would think I would lie first off. Yet you did say I "tend" to be honest. I'm not sure exactly where I haven't been as I guarantee you can't find one instance of me telling a lie that wasn't meant in jest, but anyway...

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure why you, and others, automatically assume that 90% mark. And I'll put out a challenge to you and anyone else out there to go back and find some hard stats on it. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary number that comes from the same place all arbitrary numbers come from. And generally smells the same as well. Now sometimes I think some people take my lack of response on everything that gets posted in this thread as tacit approval. Not the case at all. If I don't have anything to add, why add anything? Hence your assumption of silence was actually spot on until you directly asked me. There's generally enough outrage from other posters without me adding my brush into the tar and getting the feathers off the chicken. Which brings me to the direct answer you are looking for...

If you are referring to the umbrella guy, I do think the cops were out of line from what I saw. I honestly didn't watch the entire video (the lady screeching was really annoying) but from what I saw there obviously was excessive force being used. Now, as a matter of being a thorough kinda guy, I would like to know the entire history here and why they showed up with six (or eight, lost count) cops on scene. And the preceding five to ten minutes of the response that didn't get shown in the video. Because contrary to popular belief, cops generally have better things to do than roll up in force on a guy with an umbrella that's too big. As I've said before (and probably will again eventually) there's likely more to the story here that isn't being reported. So it does pique my interest as to why they would bring a half dozen or more officers as it's unusual to say the least. And likely there is something here that's missing from the equation.

I hope I've answered your question in a sufficient manner.
Click to expand...

Let me start by saying you must have misunderstood some of what I posted.

First off, I never insinuated that you would lie. Just the opposite. I stated that there were 4 options that one could take in responding to my question, then eliminated the 2 that were most unlikely for you to take based on what I've seen from you in this forum. Silence and lying.

Second area of misunderstanding was concerning the issue I was referring to.

Though your take on the umbrella situation was interesting, I was actually referring to the thug who destroyed the lady's phone.

If you were on duty and witnessed a man bum rush a lady wrestle away her personal property and destroy it like he did, would you arrest him for assault?

As for the 90% figure, I have no clue how accurate that is but sounds like an arbitrary number pull out of someone's a$$. That being said, I don't think it was ever meant to be taken literally, and I only used it as a point of reference to show the perception many of those on this forum have concerning the positions you're willing to take.

And since now I'm addressing you personally, let me say that I fully understand your statements regarding a brotherhood. It's natural. It's normal. It's the way it's always been. But at some point, pride in your profession should make you want your brotherhood to be more exclusive. How can you police a community when you can't police yourselves?

One of the biggest obstacles in your line of work is a "Ride or Die" mentality in some of the hardest communities to police. "Snitches get Stiches." How can you expect them to snitch if you won't. Your profession should lead by example.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,020
#6,020
Dr Dread said:
Let me start by saying you must have misunderstood some of what I posted.

First off, I never insinuated that you would lie. Just the opposite. I stated that there were 4 options that one could take in responding to my question, then eliminated the 2 that were most unlikely for you to take based on what I've seen from you in this forum. Silence and lying.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm silent on a great many things in this thread. I don't always chip in because of two reasons, One of which I stated, the other because there were details that were overlooked in the outrage yet would be like dumping a fuel tanker on a bonfire if I tried to correct someone in some way. Doesn't mean I always agree with the police response, but attempting to correct someone's misconceptions about what happened isn't as wise as it sounds. Because some people would rather be ignorant and outraged than have all the facts of the matter. And in turn take my correction as support for the actions thereof.

Dr Dread said:
Second area of misunderstanding was concerning the issue I was referring to.

Though your take on the umbrella situation was interesting, I was actually referring to the thug who destroyed the lady's phone.

If you were on duty and witnessed a man bum rush a lady wrestle away her personal property and destroy it like he did, would you arrest him for assault?
Click to expand...

It would certainly garner my attention. As to arrest, that depends. It certainly would be investigated and potentially an arrest in the end could be forthcoming. But one thing about me is I like to have my ducks in a row when dealing with items like that. There are a lot of different factors that could be in play here that would need to be clarified prior to any arrest. So to make a blanket statement that I would arrest someone based on initial viewing of what happened isn't smart.

That may seem like an evasive answer, but it's not really. There are questions that have to be answered prior to arresting someone.

Dr Dread said:
As for the 90% figure, I have no clue how accurate that is but sounds like an arbitrary number pull out of someone's a$$. That being said, I don't think it was ever meant to be taken literally, and I only used it as a point of reference to show the perception many of those on this forum have concerning the positions you're willing to take.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's automatically assumed that I will take the side of the police in any matter. And many things I say are taken completely out of context, twisted and later used against me in ways they weren't intended. As well as the stereotypes associated with the job. You can look back just in the last few pages of this thread and see the nonsense that people believe. Or attempt to provoke me because "I'm violent." To prove a point they are idiots more than anything, but the rationale in their simple minds is to try to prove to the world how violent a person is (or isn't) by provoking them from a computer screen. And yet, some of those very same people know they would get their ass kicked by practically anyone by doing what they do in real life. You follow someone around long enough and attempt to instigate a fight, eventually a fight will find you. But sadly, some of these people aren't smart enough to see that. Yet would be the first ones crying to the cops about how they got their ass beat "for no reason whatsoever."

Dr Dread said:
And since now I'm addressing you personally, let me say that I fully understand your statements regarding a brotherhood. It's natural. It's normal. It's the way it's always been. But at some point, pride in your profession should make you want your brotherhood to be more exclusive. How can you police a community when you can't police yourselves?

One of the biggest obstacles in your line of work is a "Ride or Die" mentality in some of the hardest communities to police. "Snitches get Stiches." How can you expect them to snitch if you won't. Your profession should lead by example.
Click to expand...

That would have been the point I wanted to make about the family and brotherhood. However, before I even had a chance to explain, someone already twisted it up and has used it since. Same jackass continues to use things I said out of context entirely, although they won't address me directly because they are a coward. Which is quite unusual for an ex-marine. Anyway, I'll explain it to you since we're having a peaceful discussion about the matter.

it stemmed from when Huff said "why don't more cops come out against the actions." And it's a valid question although not one that isn't likely in the long run. Why don't more cops take a public stand against the violence and whatnot? Because of the aforementioned twisting of the ideas and words. Take Charleston for example. The local chief came out against the actions and it automatically became "CYA." It doesn't matter that the vast majority of people, not just cops, would find those actions to be deplorable. It was twisted into "they got caught and have to go into cover up mode." Now is that what was intended? But more to the point, why should all cops come out against all bad actions of the profession? And should the same actions be expected of other professions as well? A German crashed an airliner. How many pilots came out in public and apologized for the incident? A doctor accidentally kills someone on the operating table. Should all doctors issue a formal apology for the actions of that one doctor? So why should LEOs be singled out for having to publicly apologize and make a stand against the actions of the few?

But on the family issue. The point I was getting at was if a family member did something wrong, so heinous that there generally was no other recourse except to condemn the actions, you won't find many family members that would want to voluntarily go on public record and condemn the actions. If asked directly, they might, but I'd be willing to bet they sure won't go out of their way to do it. And cops, not unlike firefighters and military, has a unique bond that is not unlike a family. You draw strength from those around you. You know them better than their own family. And when one does something like what happened in Charleston, you are embarrassed. Embarrassed for them, embarrassed to say you knew them and worked with them, embarrassed to think they crossed a serious line of impropriety. And sure, they speak out about it, but generally not in public. And like many families, they take care of a lot of their problems in house without letting the public know. (and if there's ever a comment that's going to be twisted, there it is)

I won't say it's easy to get someone dismissed, just like many professions, but it doesn't mean that some don't try. And there are a lot of factors involved that stonewall the process of weeding out the bad. And it really isn't any different than a lot of other professions in that regard. A doctor for example. How easy is it to get one disbarred? Let's face it, they have to do something pretty bad and completely out of line to get dismissed. And this makes them different than police? Doctors accidentally kill people on the operating table or misdiagnose serious conditions and the patients die all the time. Yet how many of them go to a grand jury? How many lose their license? Where is the public uproar over that profession? As I proved earlier in this thread, you're far more likely to be killed by a medical professional than a cop. Yet which profession earns the scorn of the public any time something bad happens? Because obviously a cop in Knoxville had everything to do with a cop in Charleston shooting a guy in the back and attempting to cover it up. Those cops in Knoxville are racist, just want to shoot me in the back, are corrupt and always cover for each other.

So I hope I explained everything to your satisfaction. And I'm fairly sure much of this will be twisted out of context as it always is. But you asked nicely after we got a rough start so I felt you were due an explanation.

Though I still disagree on the filming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,021
#6,021
lawgator1 said:
95%?

Huh? Sounds made up.

And of course even if people are annoyed that they got a ticket, that doesn't mean the officer was wrong to issue it.

There is a pr problem, I'll agree. I guess we need more of them having buildings come crashing down on them, or getting shot by people with warrants during traffic stops, for you to get the warm and fuzzies again.
Click to expand...

Before Ferguson, I would have agreed with you. But after the NYC police went on their 2 week hissy fit with DeBlasio and we noticed that tickets and citations dropped dramatically over what the cops even called unnecessary infractions, you didn't see NYC burn down or turn more violent. Then when the story cam out that the cops in Ferguson were issuing tickets and citations as a way of generating revenue (and the news reports were ultimately backed up by the Justice Department investigation), that is when I changed.

Are cops making an effort to befriend the public and garner their support when every time you have an encounter with them, it is usually over a petty traffic violation (which can turn into a fishing expedition), or loose cigarettes, or a few joints in your pocket? And like the people in my parents' generation would say, "nothing good happens after midnight". Well, the same holds true for cops. Cops put themselves at risk at night by trying to pull over bikers that make rolling stops at midnight on empty highways or pulling over a box Chevy because it has a taillight busted. These are just nuisance stops... stops intended to generate revenue and hopefully for them turn into a fishing expedition. Meanwhile, with each citizen being pulled over, the citizens feel less and less free. Cops (ideally) should be invisible and non-intrusive. If the only time cops want to interact with the public is when we do something wrong, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get negative feedback.
 
#6,022
#6,022
Rasputin_Vol said:
Before Ferguson, I would have agreed with you. But after the NYC police went on their 2 week hissy fit with DeBlasio and we noticed that tickets and citations dropped dramatically over what the cops even called unnecessary infractions, you didn't see NYC burn down or turn more violent. Then when the story cam out that the cops in Ferguson were issuing tickets and citations as a way of generating revenue (and the news reports were ultimately backed up by the Justice Department investigation), that is when I changed.

Are cops making an effort to befriend the public and garner their support when every time you have an encounter with them, it is usually over a petty traffic violation (which can turn into a fishing expedition), or loose cigarettes, or a few joints in your pocket? And like the people in my parents' generation would say, "nothing good happens after midnight". Well, the same holds true for cops. Cops put themselves at risk at night by trying to pull over bikers that make rolling stops at midnight on empty highways or pulling over a box Chevy because it has a taillight busted. These are just nuisance stops... stops intended to generate revenue and hopefully for them turn into a fishing expedition. Meanwhile, with each citizen being pulled over, the citizens feel less and less free. Cops (ideally) should be invisible and non-intrusive. If the only time cops want to interact with the public is when we do something wrong, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get negative feedback.
Click to expand...

You're just gonna get the same response they always give. Follow their rules and they won't mess with you. What they don't understand (or just don't care) is that, to many of us, what is legal/illegal and what is right/wrong are often worlds apart. When I have my time and money forcefully taken from me due to an action that I don't think is wrong, it's gonna leave a bad taste in my mouth. When those types of interactions comprise 95% of the ones I've had with law enforcement, it starts to create some resentment. The fact that they're "doing their job" and "enforcing the law" doesn't mean s**t to me if I feel like I'm being wronged in the process.
 
Last edited:
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top