Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There wasn't a call to the police ever made...he was passing by, no different than going up and knocking on a door "hey, you left your lights on", except usually your dog doesn't get killed cause you left your lights on, or your car door open.
The post you were responding to is a good example of how some try to twist the story just a bit to make it fit a particular scenario. Thank you for speaking up!
A police officer is not restricted from acting only because no criminal action has taken place, that is the point.
Or do you subscribe to the idea that were a woman giving birth and the police officer was nearby that they should as some have put it, stand still and wait to se what happens? I doubt you'll get that point.
Are you also of the opinion that ex-Marines should be banned from being Police Officers?
You are using one of the standard internet tactics used by those unable to defend their position. You are creaating strawman for your opponents views instead of the opponents actual view. It does make your life easier but it is also a form of lying. You cannot refute what is stated so you refute something that was not.
Now try again and this time refer to something I actually said.
That has nothing to do with the fact there was no call for emergency assistance and no reason to believe there was criminal activity.
You are quite embarrassing yourself with your lack of logic.
Per you own logic if a woman was giving birth and a passing officer began trying to deliver the baby without being asked for assistance and having no medical training for such and because of his actions either the mother or child died....I doubt you'll get the concept of first assessing the situation and considering a more acceptable alternative.
Criminal activity or no a good officers first reaction is not to go in guns a blazing. Good officers, and most are, first assess the situation and when there is no call of criminal activity or indication of criminal activity they don't behave as if there is criminal behavior and imminent threat, firing their weapon is a last resort.
Now crap happens and situations get out of control and often officers IMO deserve the benefit of the doubt at least until investigators can determine if excessive force was justified but that doesn't mean knee jerk violent force should be standard protocol in every situation especially non criminal ones.
Kind of into dramatics aren't you. Guns blazing? Watching too many movies?
Can you show one example where this incident is supported by a standard protocol, if you even know what one is?
By your logic, only when criminal activity has been proven, only then should the police be dispatched and otherwise they should remain at the station awaiting confirmation from someone else.
Right, things happen and this incident is rare.
Now, answer the question:
Do you agree with the other poster that ex-Marines should be banned from being police officers (their implied position)?
Kind of into dramatics aren't you. Guns blazing? Watching too many movies?
Can you show one example where this incident is supported by a standard protocol, if you even know what one is?
By your logic, only when criminal activity has been proven, only then should the police be dispatched and otherwise they should remain at the station awaiting confirmation from someone else.
Right, things happen and this incident is rare.
Now, answer the question:
Do you agree with the other poster that ex-Marines should be banned from being police officers (their implied position)?
refer to Ivoc's post ^^.
Why in the world would we want to ban ex-marines from being police officers?
I would guess a good number of ex/retired military fill law enforcement positions.
Why in the world would we want to ban ex-marines from being police officers?
I would guess a good number of ex/retired military fill law enforcement positions.
Then why not speak out against such nonsense when it is used on this thread to support an obvious anti-cop agenda?
Does IVOC speak for you? If so I can ignore your posts quite easily.
One other thing, you speak in the general but refer to the specific. It makes your posts confusing since your replies indicate you can't discern the difference nor their distinction in the replies of others. You might want to check on that.
Then why not speak out against such nonsense when it is used on this thread to support an obvious anti-cop agenda?
Does IVOC speak for you? If so I can ignore your posts quite easily.
One other thing, you speak in the general but refer to the specific. It makes your posts confusing since your replies indicate you can't discern the difference nor their distinction in the replies of others. You might want to check on that.
One poster suggests that ex-marines may make bad cops? Why is that anti-cop? It might indicate a particular individual thinks a less military LEO might be desirable...a point well worth considering. But that is certainly not anti-cop as you claim. In fact it might well be considered pro cop...just a kinder and gentler one.
Then why not speak out against such nonsense when it is used on this thread to support an obvious anti-cop agenda?
Does IVOC speak for you? If so I can ignore your posts quite easily.
One other thing, you speak in the general but refer to the specific. It makes your posts confusing since your replies indicate you can't discern the difference nor their distinction in the replies of others. You might want to check on that.
This thread is not about anti-cop agenda. I have stated my view already.
I saw no need in repeating the obvious. Ivoc stated my opinion on your reply and better than I would have myself.
Your last paragraph is basically incoherent. I dont know how to respond to that.
One poster suggests that ex-marines may make bad cops? Why is that anti-cop? It might indicate a particular individual thinks a less military LEO might be desirable...a point well worth considering. But that is certainly not anti-cop as you claim. In fact it might well be considered pro cop...just a kinder and gentler one.
And you might want to consider putting together more cogent arguments. Being young does not require you be scatter brained.
It was not a suggestion, is was a general statement implying unfitness.
You seem to have zero to contribute except personal attacks so off to ignore with you.
So you can understand, that means I won't see any of your posts henceforth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
