What if police were only allowed to use self-defense in the case where someone attacked them first? (interview, drugs)
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.
With all these cases of cops getting away with cold blooded murder it got me thinking, what if for every police dept from now on the ONLY time they were ever able to shoot someone was only after they attacked the police first? As in even if someone points a gun or knife or some other object at a police officer they can't be offensive unless the person has already shot at them or swung at them with a knife or what have you?
I think this would be the most ideal situation. Cops are already the biggest crime syndicate in America and are out for blood as it is as you can see with the Daniel Shaver case as well as countless other examples of cops getting away with unjustified shootings. I would also make it so that anytime there is a police shooting the whole video is released to an independent third party who decides the fate of the officer, not the police itself. Police care far more about protecting their own than doing what's right. Asking a police dept to investigate their own for wrongdoing is like asking Nazis to police their own when they do something to a black or jewish person; of course they will always put their own above others.
Your bigoted, biased, inflammatory rant defies rational response.
Yet, when/if something happens to you or your property, you are probably the first to call these "nazi, racist, cold-blooded crime-syndicate murderers" to protect you!
I think police have too much authority, taking some of this away would resolve alot of the problems.
Ive seen police threaten and intimidate a driver of a car pulled over because they wanted to search for drugs, they really went to work on the driver when they rejected the search, they used all sorts of threats and intimidation, really they should have been required by law to leave the scene at that point.
I think police have too much authority, taking some of this away would resolve alot of the problems.
Ive seen police threaten and intimidate a driver of a car pulled over because they wanted to search for drugs, they really went to work on the driver when they rejected the search, they used all sorts of threats and intimidation, really they should have been required by law to leave the scene at that point.
... That's certainly worked well with teachers and classroom discipline.
I don't question that 'some' police might anecdotally operate in a heavy-handed, authoritative manner. However, they all operate in a real-world environment where softly whispering, "please, thank you and if you feel like it" - are ineffective and more likely to escalate into dangerous confrontations.
Perhaps better training, not less 'authority,' is a more realistic approach. IMO, police are already hamstrung by too many restrictions and a weak, overloaded judicial system.
I think police have too much authority, taking some of this away would resolve alot of the problems.
Ive seen police threaten and intimidate a driver of a car pulled over because they wanted to search for drugs, they really went to work on the driver when they rejected the search, they used all sorts of threats and intimidation, really they should have been required by law to leave the scene at that point.
I am a strong supporter of the police, but I do agree with you on your point.
I watch a lot of cop shows in real time ( First 48, Cops, live pd )
I have noticed a huge difference between detectives interviewing suspects and cops pulling over cars.
In First 48, if they read the suspect his rights and he says he wants a lawyer present, they fold up their paperwork and leave. NO BADGERING !
With cops stopping cars, if a guy refuses to give consent for a search w/o a warrant, the cops keep badgering him on and on and on.
......." you must be hiding something or you would allow us to search"......OVER AND OVER
However, if a cop ever asked me to perform a " field sobriety test" I would refuse.
I would agree to a breath test /blood test but no cop is going to put me thru a test like a trained monkey and each time I pass devising a more complicated test until I slightly fail and he gets his " ah hah" moment.
Some of those field sobriety tests people would fail when sober.
With all these cases of cops getting away with cold blooded murder it got me thinking, what if for every police dept from now on the ONLY time they were ever able to shoot someone was only after they attacked the police first? As in even if someone points a gun or knife or some other object at a police officer they can't be offensive unless the person has already shot at them or swung at them with a knife or what have you?
I think this would be the most ideal situation. Cops are already the biggest crime syndicate in America and are out for blood as it is as you can see with the Daniel Shaver case as well as countless other examples of cops getting away with unjustified shootings. I would also make it so that anytime there is a police shooting the whole video is released to an independent third party who decides the fate of the officer, not the police itself. Police care far more about protecting their own than doing what's right. Asking a police dept to investigate their own for wrongdoing is like asking Nazis to police their own when they do something to a black or jewish person; of course they will always put their own above others.
Snowflake, is all I can say. If you think crime is bad now, under your solution, these would be the "good 'ol days". You think Chicago is bad now....
Please shoot me. I want to be within an inch of death so I can shoot back.
Police shooting are not only investigated by the department, but also the district attorney.
Come up with a better fairy tale solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchisedec
I am a strong supporter of the police, but I do agree with you on your point.
I watch a lot of cop shows in real time ( First 48, Cops, live pd )
I have noticed a huge difference between detectives interviewing suspects and cops pulling over cars.
In First 48, if they read the suspect his rights and he says he wants a lawyer present, they fold up their paperwork and leave. NO BADGERING !
With cops stopping cars, if a guy refuses to give consent for a search w/o a warrant, the cops keep badgering him on and on and on.
......." you must be hiding something or you would allow us to search"......OVER AND OVER
When a driver says "NO" the discussion is OVER.
GET A SEARCH WARRANT OR SHUT UP !
Someone who has no idea of police work other than what the TV shows. The difference between a detective, and a line guy are very different. Remember, TV only shows what is exciting, will bring in viewership, and of course $$ from advertisers. Reality TV is not always reality. Most are scripted to a large degree.
Is police work perfect? Nope. Is there better ways? Yup. Is there bad apples in the bunch? Yup. Do they try and weed them out? Yes, they go to great lengths to try and find them, and get rid of them.
Like a previous comment, a lot of people who think like the ones above are all about "babying" criminals. That is until they are directly affected by a future act of the criminal. Then they take to social media to berate law enforcement for not stopping the guy/gal, not wanting to admit that they themselves helped create the situation through the "babying" and handcuffing law enforcement.
Most law enforcement agencies offer "ride along" programs. Go on one and learn. Maybe you would learn something, and have a small amount of credibility.
Snowflake, is all I can say. If you think crime is bad now, under your solution, these would be the "good 'ol days". You think Chicago is bad now....
Please shoot me. I want to be within an inch of death so I can shoot back.
Police shooting are not only investigated by the department, but also the district attorney.
Come up with a better fairy tale solution.
Someone who has no idea of police work other than what the TV shows. The difference between a detective, and a line guy are very different. Remember, TV only shows what is exciting, will bring in viewership, and of course $$ from advertisers. Reality TV is not always reality. Most are scripted to a large degree.
Is police work perfect? Nope. Is there better ways? Yup. Is there bad apples in the bunch? Yup. Do they try and weed them out? Yes, they go to great lengths to try and find them, and get rid of them.
Like a previous comment, a lot of people who think like the ones above are all about "babying" criminals. That is until they are directly affected by a future act of the criminal. Then they take to social media to berate law enforcement for not stopping the guy/gal, not wanting to admit that they themselves helped create the situation through the "babying" and handcuffing law enforcement.
Most law enforcement agencies offer "ride along" programs. Go on one and learn. Maybe you would learn something, and have a small amount of credibility.
What part of "no" can't a cop understand?
If they did not need a search warrant to search a car they wouldn't have to ask for permission
I don't believe in " babying" criminals but a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If a cop needs a search warrant to search a car, get a search warrant if the driver says "no"
Last edited by Melchisedec; 08-17-2018 at 10:46 AM..
If they did not need a search warrant to search a car they wouldn't have to ask for permission
I don't believe in " babying" criminals but a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If a cop needs a search warrant to search a car, get a search warrant if the driver says "no"
Police don't need a warrant to search a car. They need probable cause. But to your main point, a driver can say he will not answer any questions without an attorney just like a suspect in an interrogation room can. He can also ask if he is being detained or is free to go. If he has not committed some other crime that the police are investigating him for, such as a traffic violation, he is probably free to go. Simply because the police are still talking to you does not mean you are not free to go. Many people don't understand this process, but it is really not any different than being in an interrogation room.
There is already plenty of policy with regard to use of deadly force throughout the nation's police department's. So much of the time we just don't want to admit the reality of failures among human beings--on both sides of the law--as a norm. Police today face the worst time in our history when considering the frequency of violence committed against them. I don't feel a need to restrain the entire force with impossibly complex directives on the use of force, the failures among the nations police are simply part of the whole of human social dynamics, period.
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.
