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.
The idea of unarmed police is somewhat silly but I also think that they need significantly expanded firearms training, and better background checks to weed out the Rambo wannabees. I know this isn't going to be popular but I also suggest requiring a 4 year college degree ... and perhaps restricting the number of military veterans or maybe make PTSD an automatic disqualifier with no exceptions.
I think we need national training and hiring standards for law enforcement as well. Too many states down South and out West have lax standards.
The idea of unarmed police is somewhat silly but I also think that they need significantly expanded firearms training, and better background checks to weed out the Rambo wannabees. I know this isn't going to be popular but I also suggest requiring a 4 year college degree ... and perhaps restricting the number of military veterans or maybe make PTSD an automatic disqualifier with no exceptions.
I think we need national training and hiring standards for law enforcement as well. Too many states down South and out West have lax standards.
I agree with you to a certain degree.
but in this particular case, I think the issue is that
Police officers are legally allowed to use force based on their perception of a threat, so long as their perception is defined as reasonable (usually as judged by a prosecutor, judge, jury, or grand jury). That doesn't, however, mean they always use force. I read it somewhere, that "Police very often use a lesser level of force even when they’re justified at a higher level"
This is a very unfortunate but, for the most part, preventable incident. Training is a big issue, but honestly I believe there is a bigger issue that could resolve most of these bad shoot incidents. That issue lies with screening potential AND existing LEOs at least once a year.
Sadly I am of the opinion that law enforcement attracts several types and two of them are extremely dangerous and a liability to the profession when they are hired or retained as their dangerous and liability causing traits come to the surface. The first of the two dangerous traits are the hardcore authoritarians who consistently place their super ego, their demand that others comply or get hurt, comply or die mentality when dealing with others over that of a protector, thriving off the addictive chemical adrenaline rush that constantly needs to be fed. These people are, in my honest opinion, the most dangerous officers out there. The second of the dangerous traits for an officer to have sadly... is being a coward, which is what I believe the officer in the OPs video was.
On the first trait, the hardcore authoritarians... anyone with any degree of decent observation skills can identify 80+% of these officers. You can spot them in their body language and in the way they speak to non-LEOs, even and especially when they aren't involved in a lawful interaction (what should just be casual conversation). These officers are plain and simple rear ends to almost any and everyone they meet by holding a command presence for every interaction, treating everyone they meet as beneath them unless they know the other person to be a LEO or someone who is actually above them on the food chain, i.e. a prosecutor, judge, politician, etc. Their dangerous traits become even more evident when you add alcohol to that officer.
These officers hold zero respect for anyone they deem to be beneath their position or status, if you will. Their stance is almost always the first noticeable and easily spotted trait. The danger they create for anyone they encounter, whether as part of their job or even just people they come into contact with away from their job, comes from their comply or get hurt / comply or die mentality. People with this hardcore authoritarian sickness often have low self esteem and tend to view the smallest hint of not holding them in the highest regard as disrespectful to THEM, not so much the badge, yet they can always pull out that badge and use it to justify any and everything they'll do to another person. This personality trait can be developed over time and should be screened out before entering law enforcement as well as should be sufficient cause to terminate any existing officer for the protection of society.
Now for the cowards in law enforcement, which I believe is the case with the officer in the OPs video. Please note, I am not disparaging or degrading these officers for having this trait, I am merely pointing out that it exists and places society in danger. This trait is tougher to spot, but can be detected by a good observer and by regular (annual) mental health screening. The officers with this trait also have poor self esteem and many question (internally) their training and ability to handle situations. Officers with this trait are likely to regularly picture (in their minds) scenarios where they may face shoot or die conditions, and their regular training likely reinforces that this is likely, which is unacceptable because the likelihood of having a genuine self defense or defense of others scenario, where lethal force is genuinely needed is very small in most, if not almost all situations.
The officer in the OPs video knew he messed up, yet he didn't understand why he messed up. He undoubtedly does not recognize his fear of what might happen and didn't was caused by his cowardice. If he had confidence in his ability and training, if he took the time to assess the situation properly, if he waited long enough to see if the suspect was verbally compliant while remaining in a position of relative safety, this situation did not need to happen. He shot because he was unjustifiably afraid. That is a danger to society.
I personally know some very good officers, even though they are the exception rather than the rule. They are confident, not arrogant. They are kind and respectful to everyone they meet. They are also capable and willing to make that hard choice, the choice to use force IF necessary, but always try to deescalate first, leaving force as the absolute last resort. These are the only types that should be in law enforcement, but they are fairly rare.
I am not slamming the individuals that I say shouldn't be in law enforcement. I am merely saying they shouldn't be in that profession. They may not have started out that way, and their bad traits may have developed after getting into law enforcement. It doesn't change the fact that their traits make them dangerous and create a serious liability and society deserves better.
Now for the problem with what I've pointed out. Start out with, the Thin Blue Line. This concept of protecting officers who shouldn't be on the force is bad for society. It is done by the officers' departments AND by local, State and federal government. The reasons are different for the protections. Officers tend to do this out of concern that one day they may need the same backing they are offering their fellow officer. They protect in hopes that IF they need it, they too will be protected. Governments tend to do this solely for the almighty dollar and the liability they face when they have an officer who shouldn't be on the force. It is easier to use government resources to fight claims against the department than to honestly accept that they knew this person might not have been a good fit, and therefore they individually are somehow complicit because they allowed someone to have a badge and gun when they knew better or at least suspected it might be a problem.
Now for the only possible solution I have, although I am certain others may exist. Each LEO should undergo an annual mental health job competency evaluation and this evaluation needs to be done by mental health professionals who are somewhat critical of the law enforcement community, NOT someone who supports LEOs simply because they are LEOs. Fair assessments need to be made and the LEO community needs to support this, because even though Joe/Jane cop may be a great guy, if he/she doesn't posses the proper traits for the job, they are a danger and a liability. Every LEO and LEO supporter needs to recognize that every LEO encounter with another human could be with that person's kid, parent, spouse, etc. The question every LEO and LEO supporter needs to ask themselves is, do they want one of their family members or friends involved in an encounter with a LEO where their loved one could be beaten or worse, shot because they encountered an officer who really shouldn't be in the profession?
It's a tough thing. I support GOOD LEOs, but like I said, I believe they are fairly rare in the profession. I find myself more hyper critical of the bad LEOs because they are suppose to be the professional, yet in very few cases are.
I recognize my opinion on the subject will be met with serious criticism. Some will call me a cop hater, which is NOT true. I am a bad cop hater because every bad cop out there places the good cops in danger and more importantly, they put every person they encounter in perilous danger. To me, that is simply unacceptable.
Then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
Yes, but it would be nice if less seedy characters got into law enforcement. Like others have said, raise the pay but require stricter hiring standards.. Cities won't want to pay cops more though. Just obey the law and keep a low key and try to avoid encounters with cops, lol.
But cops, in particular in America shooting or otherwise harming people for absurd reasons is nothing new.
But should cops honestly be allowed to carry guns? You may argue "but they need them to defend themselves!" but isn't a person being shot unjustifiably worse than a police officer getting shot?
Get a friend. Give him a toy gun that looks realistic and a wallet of dark color. Then have him randomly pull out either the wallet or the gun of his choice in a quick motion. Get back to me if you can tell whether he was pulling out a gun or a wallet in the time he gave you.
So what do you think would happen if cops were never allowed to carry weapons under any circumstances? Other than lots of people not getting shot for no reason?
I think they would be absolutely powerless to stop a crime in progress.
I don't know why this airman had to hold his wallet when he got out of the car; i certainly don't understand why this cop had to shoot him (can't he see that is a wallet?)
No, you can't. First off the guy got out of his vehicle. Big mistake number 1. Secondly the way he pulled out his wallet anyone could reasonably believe he was pulling out a gun. Watch any video where a cop got shot and you'll see that the guy with the wallet made the same motion as a guy with a gun.
But cops, in particular in America shooting or otherwise harming people for absurd reasons is nothing new.
But should cops honestly be allowed to carry guns? You may argue "but they need them to defend themselves!" but isn't a person being shot unjustifiably worse than a police officer getting shot?
Go walk in their shoes for a day, by the time you were done you would want every weapon you can think of.
This is a very unfortunate but, for the most part, preventable incident. Training is a big issue, but honestly I believe there is a bigger issue that could resolve most of these bad shoot incidents. That issue lies with screening potential AND existing LEOs at least once a year.
Sadly I am of the opinion that law enforcement attracts several types and two of them are extremely dangerous and a liability to the profession when they are hired or retained as their dangerous and liability causing traits come to the surface. The first of the two dangerous traits are the hardcore authoritarians who consistently place their super ego, their demand that others comply or get hurt, comply or die mentality when dealing with others over that of a protector, thriving off the addictive chemical adrenaline rush that constantly needs to be fed. These people are, in my honest opinion, the most dangerous officers out there. The second of the dangerous traits for an officer to have sadly... is being a coward, which is what I believe the officer in the OPs video was.
On the first trait, the hardcore authoritarians... anyone with any degree of decent observation skills can identify 80+% of these officers. You can spot them in their body language and in the way they speak to non-LEOs, even and especially when they aren't involved in a lawful interaction (what should just be casual conversation). These officers are plain and simple rear ends to almost any and everyone they meet by holding a command presence for every interaction, treating everyone they meet as beneath them unless they know the other person to be a LEO or someone who is actually above them on the food chain, i.e. a prosecutor, judge, politician, etc. Their dangerous traits become even more evident when you add alcohol to that officer.
These officers hold zero respect for anyone they deem to be beneath their position or status, if you will. Their stance is almost always the first noticeable and easily spotted trait. The danger they create for anyone they encounter, whether as part of their job or even just people they come into contact with away from their job, comes from their comply or get hurt / comply or die mentality. People with this hardcore authoritarian sickness often have low self esteem and tend to view the smallest hint of not holding them in the highest regard as disrespectful to THEM, not so much the badge, yet they can always pull out that badge and use it to justify any and everything they'll do to another person. This personality trait can be developed over time and should be screened out before entering law enforcement as well as should be sufficient cause to terminate any existing officer for the protection of society.
Now for the cowards in law enforcement, which I believe is the case with the officer in the OPs video. Please note, I am not disparaging or degrading these officers for having this trait, I am merely pointing out that it exists and places society in danger. This trait is tougher to spot, but can be detected by a good observer and by regular (annual) mental health screening. The officers with this trait also have poor self esteem and many question (internally) their training and ability to handle situations. Officers with this trait are likely to regularly picture (in their minds) scenarios where they may face shoot or die conditions, and their regular training likely reinforces that this is likely, which is unacceptable because the likelihood of having a genuine self defense or defense of others scenario, where lethal force is genuinely needed is very small in most, if not almost all situations.
The officer in the OPs video knew he messed up, yet he didn't understand why he messed up. He undoubtedly does not recognize his fear of what might happen and didn't was caused by his cowardice. If he had confidence in his ability and training, if he took the time to assess the situation properly, if he waited long enough to see if the suspect was verbally compliant while remaining in a position of relative safety, this situation did not need to happen. He shot because he was unjustifiably afraid. That is a danger to society.
I personally know some very good officers, even though they are the exception rather than the rule. They are confident, not arrogant. They are kind and respectful to everyone they meet. They are also capable and willing to make that hard choice, the choice to use force IF necessary, but always try to deescalate first, leaving force as the absolute last resort. These are the only types that should be in law enforcement, but they are fairly rare.
I am not slamming the individuals that I say shouldn't be in law enforcement. I am merely saying they shouldn't be in that profession. They may not have started out that way, and their bad traits may have developed after getting into law enforcement. It doesn't change the fact that their traits make them dangerous and create a serious liability and society deserves better.
Now for the problem with what I've pointed out. Start out with, the Thin Blue Line. This concept of protecting officers who shouldn't be on the force is bad for society. It is done by the officers' departments AND by local, State and federal government. The reasons are different for the protections. Officers tend to do this out of concern that one day they may need the same backing they are offering their fellow officer. They protect in hopes that IF they need it, they too will be protected. Governments tend to do this solely for the almighty dollar and the liability they face when they have an officer who shouldn't be on the force. It is easier to use government resources to fight claims against the department than to honestly accept that they knew this person might not have been a good fit, and therefore they individually are somehow complicit because they allowed someone to have a badge and gun when they knew better or at least suspected it might be a problem.
Now for the only possible solution I have, although I am certain others may exist. Each LEO should undergo an annual mental health job competency evaluation and this evaluation needs to be done by mental health professionals who are somewhat critical of the law enforcement community, NOT someone who supports LEOs simply because they are LEOs. Fair assessments need to be made and the LEO community needs to support this, because even though Joe/Jane cop may be a great guy, if he/she doesn't posses the proper traits for the job, they are a danger and a liability. Every LEO and LEO supporter needs to recognize that every LEO encounter with another human could be with that person's kid, parent, spouse, etc. The question every LEO and LEO supporter needs to ask themselves is, do they want one of their family members or friends involved in an encounter with a LEO where their loved one could be beaten or worse, shot because they encountered an officer who really shouldn't be in the profession?
It's a tough thing. I support GOOD LEOs, but like I said, I believe they are fairly rare in the profession. I find myself more hyper critical of the bad LEOs because they are suppose to be the professional, yet in very few cases are.
I recognize my opinion on the subject will be met with serious criticism. Some will call me a cop hater, which is NOT true. I am a bad cop hater because every bad cop out there places the good cops in danger and more importantly, they put every person they encounter in perilous danger. To me, that is simply unacceptable.
Then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
The sky just fell, and it landed on the head of the unicorn I just found grazing outside my window.
I agree with you!
I think the number of good cops may be a bit higher than you say, but overall, I think you are spot-on, particularly regarding how to deal with the problem.
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.
Mark this date.
