Reply
Fri 22 Aug, 2014 06:42 pm
I find postings about how being a cop is not that dangerous quite amusing. I have listened to the public and the uninformed talking heads on CNN/MSNBC opining the use of force by police as unecessary and cant figure out why they do what they do in these situations.
First, to those who say being a cop is not dangerous, go to your local PD, fill out an application, take the training and do the job...then come and talk to us.
As for some of the misconceptions about the training and use of force for police, here are the facts:
The first thing you must understand is that EVERY situation you go into there is always one gun present...YOURS. And this gun can be used against you.
When you employ deadly force you do not shoot to wound. (You do not fire a warning shot.) When you are in the "fight or flight" syndrone your senses suffer. So you are taught to aim for the biggest target in order to better achieve a hit to STOP THE THREAT. And you must keep shooting until the threat stops. The biggest target is CENTER MASS on the human torso. Warning shots, shooting to wound in a crisis situation is an invitation to killing an innocent bystander. The officer is responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves his gun.
Before modern police training cops were being killed by people who were shot once or twice when the officer paused to see if the offender was dead or incapacitated. Officers are trained to handcuff the shooter after being shot because in the past these "dead" people have been known to kill the officer.
The offender ALWAYS has the upperhand in a fight because he knows what he's going to do...the officer has to guess. If the offender is not complying, i.e. not taking his hands out of his pockets then makes an aggressive move the officer HAS to assume he has a gun and is going to use it and the officer must shoot first in order to live. If a police officer is chasing a subject and the person stops and spins around the officer MUST assume theat he is turning to fire; if he doesnt he could end up dead.
If an offender is with in 21 feet of and officer with an edged weapon and makes any movement forward, the officer must shoot. It has been proven that an aggessor can cover that distance and kill the officer before the officer can shoot. Even if you shoot as him just before he reaches you he will still have enough oxegenated blood in his system to kill you. Only a CNS (central nervous system) hit will drop him and THAT is a VERY small target, i.e. lucky shot. There is a famous case of an offender who was shot point blank in the heart with a .357 magnum who ran down 2 flights of stairs and 50 feet before collapsing. Using pepper spray/taser in this situation is an invitation for the officers demise.
Disparity of force. If a 300 pound 6 foot tall man is fighting with you, a 160 pound 5'9" police officer for your gun and you are injured to the point that you may lose your gun, you SHOOT the offender. If the person is getting away from you and the only way to affect the arrest is to shoot him, then you do so. (it's called the fleeing felon law) The requisite is if the fleeing felon is a violent felon and could be a futher danger to other police or the public. Beating an officer almost to unconsciousness trying to get his gun more then qualifies. The fact that he beat an officer to the point of unconsciousness and tried to get his gun is prima facia evidence of a continuing danger to others.
If the perpetrator disengages then starts back torward the officer he has to assume that if re-engaged he could lose his gun and it could be used on him, so he MUST shoot.
Officers recieve only minimal trainging in the use of their fists when defending against an attack because you can't "certifiy" a person in the use of his fists. You can certify them in the use of pepper spray, baton, taser, and firearm. The need to be certified is a civil liabilty requirement to reduce exposure to lawsuit.
The above tactics were not developed because someone thought they sounded good, they were implemented after hundreds of police officers were killed.
THE REASON THAT IT APPEARS THAT BEING A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT A DANGEROUS JOB IS BECUASE OF THIS TRAINING AND THESE TACTICS MORE POLICE OFFICERS ARE SURVIVING VIOLENT ENCOUNTERS.
This was NOT the case during the 60's and 70's.
If you do not want to be shot by the police...comply with their orders. If you think they wrong, address it LATER.
SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST!!
What special training is it that causes cowardly pigs to shoot subjects several times after they have already surrendered? What high level, precision training is it that makes them beat helpless homeless people or mentally handicapped people when they don't happen to be able to react quickly enough?
Your ridiculous screed indicates clearly that you have probably never heard of any encounter where a "peace officer" bullied citizens, or used excessive force. But that just makes you not only ignorant, but blind as well.
What ? ! ? ! ? Another racist at able2know? Who would have thought . . .
There are many kinds of cops, just as there are many kinds of criminals. Many cops serve the public faithfully. Some are bullies and worse. Some like to use force before it is called for. I have personally been treated mostly kindly by the cops I have encountered. Once, I was jailed for being too close to the freeway while hitch hiking. There was a skinny white guy getting booked at the same time as me. The white guy was lined up about eighteen inches from me. With no warning, a cop hit that guy in the face with his fist. The guy flew out of the room from the force of the blow and the cop kept sucking on his knuckles. The same cop sat at the booking desk, then. He saw my Rhode Island driver license. "You a Yankee?" he demanded to know. "I'm from here," I said. I kept my eyes trained in front of me, never once looking to confront or to challenge these cops. One of the jailers was impressed with my demeanor and I was quickly rushed through the process. The one reason I did not try to report the incident, I was living in Oklahoma at the time and just passing through Houston. No resources to get involved.
Some cops I have encountered left me laughing, even two who gave me a ticket for something. I do think many cops exceed their authority. I know they do. When they get charged with crimes, juries mostly let them go, even when there is sufficient evidence to convict. The ones that shoot or tase first and look to justify the act later generally get away with it.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:The ones that shoot or tase first and look to justify the act later generally get away with it.
I surely do agree with that.
@snood,
As I said...Fill out the application, pass the background and the training, then do the job. And after you are spit on, vomited on urinated on, shot, at cut with a knide had dogs sicked on you, got a split lip and stitches, had rock, bottles and molotov cocktails thrown at you, and sued for no good reason other than some one saw you as a pay day, then you can talk...till then you are merely hot air.
FYI...THERE ARE PLENTY OF BAD COPS IN JAIL
@giujohn,
There would not be if there were not plenty of bad cops.
@edgarblythe,
NO ONE is saying there arent bad cops...there are good and bad in EVERY profession. The ratio of bad cops to good is small but a lot of then DO end up in jail.
@giujohn,
Not the ones I am talking about.
@edgarblythe,
Well, if this was a perfect world I'd be MUCH better looking with A LOT more money.
Apologists for cowardly, dysfunctional bully cops always trot out a litany of on-the-job hazards to rationalize their wretchedness. It's usually immediately preceded or followed by the qualifier "I know it doesn't excuse their behavior". Now THAT'S hot air.
Rodney King is a perfect example. The defense for the cops walked the jury through the video: See. Each time they kick his head or pummel his belly, he twitches. A sure sign he is trying to kill them. Naturally, in the face of such persuasive evidence, the jury had to find the poor cops innocent.
@snood,
So tell me...when were you arrested and what was the charge?
@edgarblythe,
Quote:the jury had to find the poor cops innocent.
Seems to me you have forgotten the Sgt. and the officer who hit him the most both served 3 years in prison.
Selective memory?
@giujohn,
A bull shyt question that deserves no answer. Were you a prosecutor in your spare time you sound like one.
@giujohn,
Quote:Before modern police training cops were being killed by people who were shot once or twice when the officer paused to see if the offender was dead or incapacitated. Officers are trained to handcuff the shooter after being shot because in the past these "dead" people have been known to kill the officer.
Sure, that must be why there were thousands of cops a year killed in the 20s and 30s.
Oh wait. You are just making **** up because you think no one will be able to actually check the facts.
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
Quote:
If an offender is with in 21 feet of and officer with an edged weapon and makes any movement forward, the officer must shoot. It has been proven that an aggessor can cover that distance and kill the officer before the officer can shoot. Even if you shoot as him just before he reaches you he will still have enough oxegenated blood in his system to kill you.
Once again, proven because thousands of officers have died from just this scenario.
Quote:
The above tactics were not developed because someone thought they sounded good, they were implemented after hundreds of police officers were killed.
Many officers are killed like the one recently in St Paul Mn. They are completely unprepared when someone shoots them when they make a traffic stop. I'm surprised you haven't suggested that officers shoot anyone in a car they pull over. It would create a much safer environment for police.
Even in the 60s and 70s being a police officer was hardly a dangerous profession compared to many others.
@parados,
Quote:Oh wait. You are just making **** up because you think no one will be able to actually check the facts.
Quote:Even in the 60s and 70s being a police officer was hardly a dangerous profession compared to many others.
You should read the charts you post.
1970-1980...2500 cops killed
2000-2010...1800 cops killed
BACKS UP EXACTLY WHAT I SAID DUMB ASS
@giujohn,
I did read the charts. The number of police killed is only down 38%. That is a time period where deaths of workers in general are down 58%. And somehow police still don't make the top 10 most dangerous occupations. Police work wasn't among the most dangerous 40 years ago. It isn't among the most dangerous today.
The charts show what you said is nonsense. I could just as easily point to the required use of body armor for most police officers as the reason for the reduction of deaths. But you are ignoring that the majority of police deaths don't occur from shootings. More were killed by auto accident or being struck by an auto than were killed by being shot, stabbed or strangled. The biggest reason for the decrease in officer deaths has been better vehicles and vehicle safety.
When we look at the actual numbers the percent of police officers killed by gunfire has remained about the same from the 1970 to today. Since gunfire makes up less then 50% of police deaths, to argue that tactics training is the main reason for the decrease in deaths is bull ****.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace