INGO member in handcuffs

[03mustgt]

As a law enforcement officer, I can imagine that this priority prevents you from doing your job effectively. I think we all signed on to place the safety of the citizens of the United States of America above our own lives. If my #1 priority is going home at the end of shift, I will spend a lot of time at Starbucks and avoid any potentially dangerous situation that may arise that I am not required to tend to.

1) No, this priority keeps me from becoming complacent, and making poor decisions. I try to be as safe as I can be, not any less effective. I feel you owe it to not only yourself, but your family as well to do the same.

2) Sure, there are times in this job where you just gotta pray a little because there is no safe way to address a situation.

3) Good thing there is no Starbucks in town.....

 

[dross]

Except he misused the word. The "vapors" was a polite term Southern ladies used to excuse themselves when they had to fart.

Actually, not. The vapors is a term for what used to be diagnosed as "female hysteria" which was considered to be a female specific neurotic disorder.

PM me if you want to know how they treated it. Fascinating, really.

 

[long coat]

If it was an MP5 like on the shirt, it is going to have a <16 inch barrel and so is a handgun under Indiana law and requires a LTCH.
Joe

He had his LTCH & he was not the one in cuffs.

ATFC was cuffed when he said no to pulling out his gun.

If you want to go on a ride-along, send me a PM. Until then, don't lump us all in the same group due to either your limited experience or what you've heard about a few LEO's through the media. You're using the same debate against LEO's that the Brady Campaign uses against gun owners, take the worst .01% and use them as the example for what they all stand for.

And please don't lump the good people you meet every day with the few scum you meet.

 

[finity]

My number 1 priority is to go home at the end of the night, if i do that then I have had a succesfull night. If I am placed in a position where I need to decide on who's life is more important then I place Innocents lives above mine, and criminals below mine in my priorities.

Is that clearer????? Next in line please...........

The sticking point is WHAT you would be OK doing to "go home at the end of the night". Remember "you" is not necessarily YOU, it's the generic "you" of "LEO's". I just use YOU as an example because YOU have made statements that makes ME raise an eyebrow.

If I take your "#1 priority" statement in absolute terms to it's logical conclusion then "you" would have no qualms in violating someone's rights just to realize "your" priority of going home at night.

There are many things you COULD DO to ensure that you end your shift safely (for you) but are prohibited by the limits placed on you by the Constitution, let alone common respect for another human being. Are you willing to act outside those strictures to make sure you go home? I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling with the mindset that your "#1 priority" is your own safety.

You also say (finally) that you hold innocent people's safety as a higher priority than your own. Good. The problem, again, though, is your own words you posted previously. You said:

It is my job to fish, sorry I cant just assume that every person I stop is a law abiding citizen.

Ignoring the willingness to "fish" for PC that wasn't readily apparent initially, for the above to make any coherent sense at all you would really need to believe that:

It is my job to fish, sorry I cant just assume that [STRIKE]every[/STRIKE] ANY person I stop is a law abiding citizen.

Which now means that every person could be a "criminal" & is therefore your lowest priority where someone's safety is concerned. You see the "slippery slope" that your "priority" mindset results in? How many innocent people have been injured or killed because the officer mistakenly thought that they were "going for a weapon" when in reality if they would have hesitated just a millisecond longer they would have realized it was just a wallet?

Could that millisecond of hesitation end up putting YOU in more danger? Absolutely. But THAT is what you volunteered for. I would much rather see a cop get killed than an innocent person get killed by the cop because they "thought" they were "going for a [non-existant] weapon".

If you don't like the reality that when you VOLUNTEERED to be an agent of the government, with the extraordinary powers over others you have been entrusted with, that you HAVE TO put your safety completely aside & not assume that "every person could be a criminal" then maybe you need to find another line of work.

As a law enforcement officer, I can imagine that this priority prevents you from doing your job effectively. I think we all signed on to place the safety of the citizens of the United States of America above our own lives. If my #1 priority is going home at the end of shift, I will spend a lot of time at Starbucks and avoid any potentially dangerous situation that may arise that I am not required to tend to.

Thank you. That is EXACTLY the mindset we need in our LEO's. Again, thank you.

PM me if you want to know how they treated it. Fascinating, really.

You've got to love the inhibited "Victorian Era" & the unique & crafty ways they got around those inhibitions.

 

[Indy317]

Making the first priority "going home at night" is what allowed the Columbine massacre to continue. I say this as a Colorado resident who knows many of the people involved personally.

If the first officer who arrived had not been as concerned with "going home tonight" as he was with some children going home at night, more might have gotten home.

What a load of BS. The cops weren't able to engage the guys at Columbine on an even level. One cop, getting shot at through a window. The cop fired, but couldn't make entry. Cops can get killed, and committing would be suicide isn't part of the job description. Secondly, no one can do anything when bombs are factored in.

 

[Joe Williams]

What a load of BS. The cops weren't able to engage the guys at Columbine on an even level. One cop, getting shot at through a window. The cop fired, but couldn't make entry. Cops can get killed, and committing would be suicide isn't part of the job description. Secondly, no one can do anything when bombs are factored in.

Horsecrap. What isn't, or shouldn't, be part of the job description is leaving kids and teachers on their own to die. The cops were trained to hang out outside, and do just that... leave kids to die so the cops wouldn't be in danger. Thankfully, the training is changing now, and many departments are adopting a more aggressive response policy, because MOST cops are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their citizens. If a cop isn't willing to do that, they need to find a new line of work. I do believe they mentioned to me that getting killed protecting others was a risk of the job...

 

[Jeremiah]

I am very curious as to why the officers feel that is a valid excuse, but not one for you and I. If a cop drew down on a person for fear of his life, and the person he drew down on, shot him for fear that the cop may shoot him, how effed would that civilian be? should the civlian just wait to get shot?


also think about the no-knock warrants. How many have been botched, and the LEO's went to the wrong house. Imagine a knock on the door at 3a.m. ( by knock i mean it was just broke down) and pouring in comes men with flashlights and guns, what would you do? past the light and with weapons raised you can't read the word "police" written acros their chest, even though those letters will be nearly 4 inches tall.

But men with guns break into your house ( somehow justified by the state) and you are supposed to accept that they are police and not shoot at these men that have guns pointed at you? while this is an extreme case, it has become the highest level of coordinated abuse used on the general public, I find it absurd some of the mentalities that have been ingrained some of the LEO's here, I just hope they can learn to be as rational as some of the other members that are also LEO's that are more honestly critical of situations involving police and civilians, ( you know the ones that don't automatically assume anything, they wait to find stuff out before they criticize either party)

 

[Jeremiah]

Horsecrap. What isn't, or shouldn't, be part of the job description is leaving kids and teachers on their own to die. The cops were trained to hang out outside, and do just that... leave kids to die so the cops wouldn't be in danger. Thankfully, the training is changing now, and many departments are adopting a more aggressive response policy, because MOST cops are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their citizens. If a cop isn't willing to do that, they need to find a new line of work. I do believe they mentioned to me that getting killed protecting others was a risk of the job...

Would be far less of an issue if schools weren't gun free zones. then the people with first hand knowledge could act. The kid at VT used the threat of a bomb to hold police in confusion for some time.

 

[Fargo]

What a load of BS. The cops weren't able to engage the guys at Columbine on an even level. One cop, getting shot at through a window. The cop fired, but couldn't make entry. Cops can get killed, and committing would be suicide isn't part of the job description. Secondly, no one can do anything when bombs are factored in.

I agree. There were breakdowns at Columbine that had to do with many things, but I've never been convinced that cowardice was necessarily one of them.

IMO, cops not carrying enough ammo, cops not having long guns, a disorganized chain of command, a target rich environment and two well prepared bad guys with bombs who wanted to die were the primary issues.

Plus, that was in an era before active shooter scenarios had been studied and officers trained how to respond. Establish perimeter, organize, and then act was still the way things were largely done. Doing things the way you were trained, even if in hindsight that was the wrong way to do it, does not equate to cowardice in my book. Cowardice is knowing what to do and choosing not to do it.

I have no problem with officers wanting to go home at night. I have no problem with that being a priority as long as they recognize that their job will at times make that not possible and they are willing to make that sacrifice. If they aren't, they have no business as an LEO.

If I get pulled over, I want to see the officer tight to the side of my car as he approaches. I want to see him stop before he gets into the funnel. I want to see him paying attention to my hands and movement. These things do not offend me. It actually offends me if a cop is sloppy on a stop, it means he doesn't take his own safety seriously. If he doesn't take his own safety seriously, I have a hard time buying he gives a crap about mine.

Remember what Jack Twinning told the police about his decision to kill the CHP officer who was approaching his car at the outset of the Newhall massacre?

For the next several hours, negotiators talked on the phone with Twinning, who openly bragged about how he took advantage of Frago's mistake when he saw the officer approach his car with the shotgun in an un-shootable position: "He got careless, so I wasted him."

Newhall massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now, if the officer wants to cuss me, bully me, threaten me, or engage in illegal searches, seizures, or other behavior, there is going to be a problem. That said, acting careful around me does not bother me at all.

Not assuming that everyone is law abiding does not translate to assuming that everyone is not law abiding. There is an inherent logical fallacy there.

I don't assume that anyone is law abiding. I don't assume that just because someone is a cop they are trustworthy. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ASSUME THAT EVERYONE BREAKS THE LAW AND COPS ARE INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Best,


Joe

 

[bigus_D]

Perhaps it is time to return to the actual event in question.

These individuals were confirmed to be law abiding citizens in violation of no law. AFTER that was established, their detainment continued. Further, they were forced to put themselves and others in danger by being commanded to handle their weapons. Failure to comply with these unlawful commands resulted in being placed in handcuffs. NONE of that should have happened.

 

[BearArms]

Horsecrap. What isn't, or shouldn't, be part of the job description is leaving kids and teachers on their own to die. The cops were trained to hang out outside, and do just that... leave kids to die so the cops wouldn't be in danger. Thankfully, the training is changing now, and many departments are adopting a more aggressive response policy, because MOST cops are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their citizens. If a cop isn't willing to do that, they need to find a new line of work. I do believe they mentioned to me that getting killed protecting others was a risk of the job...

LEO's are NOT SUPERHEROS! And most all of them realize this. Nobody likes the idea of kids and teachers dieing.

 

[dross]

I agree. There were breakdowns at Columbine that had to do with many things, but I've never been convinced that cowardice was necessarily one of them.

I didn't mean to imply cowardice in a particular officer, though I see why my statement could have been interpreted that way. I understand that the cop was following the procedure he had been trained under.
The policy behind the procedure, IMO, was based on officer safety being placed at a higher priority than it should have been.

Also, "officer safety" in general seems to be cover for a variety of evils, some of which are documented in this thread.

 

[.40caltrucker]

The sticking point is WHAT you would be OK doing to "go home at the end of the night". Remember "you" is not necessarily YOU, it's the generic "you" of "LEO's". I just use YOU as an example because YOU have made statements that makes ME raise an eyebrow.

If I take your "#1 priority" statement in absolute terms to it's logical conclusion then "you" would have no qualms in violating someone's rights just to realize "your" priority of going home at night.

There are many things you COULD DO to ensure that you end your shift safely (for you) but are prohibited by the limits placed on you by the Constitution, let alone common respect for another human being. Are you willing to act outside those strictures to make sure you go home? I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling with the mindset that your "#1 priority" is your own safety.

If I take this statement in absolute terms to it's logical conclusion, I conclude that "you" believe LEOs lives have no value.

Lets say an officer comes onto a scene where there are 5 armed men beating 1 guy. I believe that officer has to put his own safety above the safety of the one getting beaten. If he's calling for backup at the same time he's confronting the attackers what are his chances of getting out of there alive? Slim right! Now, if he holds back and waits for backup arrive, he has just put his safety first and you some how believe that's wrong?

I'm not saying they should never intervene and protect people. But a dead officer can't protect anyone right.

 

[finity]

Not assuming that everyone is law abiding does not translate to assuming that everyone is not law abiding. There is an inherent logical fallacy there.

I don't assume that anyone is law abiding. I don't assume that just because someone is a cop they are trustworthy. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ASSUME THAT EVERYONE BREAKS THE LAW AND COPS ARE INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY.

I agree that under "normal" circumstances that not having an opinion ( or just making no assumption) whatsoever is perfectly acceptable & to argue otherwise is not logical,

BUT...

When you are in a position to use that opinion (or assumption) to determine your future actions it is not illogical to state that it HAS to be one way or the other.

If you make no assumption either way then why does that criteria even enter into the picture? You MUST assume that EVERY person HAS THE ABILITY (& may try) to do you harm for you to take actions to defend yourself. You must assume that EVERY person COULD BE a criminal. Strangely, I don't really have a problem with that.

The problem is not assuming that every person could be a criminal & taking REASONABLE precautions to protect yourself. The problem is that when you place that assumption as your #1 priority in how you respond to ANY given situation you end up (as a matter of course) eventually violating someone's rights. Even criminal's have rights.

It may not happen all the time. It may not ever happen to one particular officer, if just through sheer luck. But it does happen. A lot. Way more than it should & the reason is because of the previously mentioned "#1 priority" mindset.

I may not assume that "all cops are untrustworthy" as a general statement (on the contrary) but I WILL assume that the individual one I am interacting with at any given moment COULD be untrustworthy & I will take action to lessen the danger to me if they are. Then again I'M not in any position to violate the cops rights, either. All I have to worry about is trying to defend mine.

 

[.40caltrucker]

I agree that under "normal" circumstances that not having an opinion ( or just making no assumption) whatsoever is perfectly acceptable & to argue otherwise is not logical,

BUT...

When you are in a position to use that opinion (or assumption) to determine your future actions it is not illogical to state that it HAS to be one way or the other.

If you make no assumption either way then why does that criteria even enter into the picture? You MUST assume that EVERY person HAS THE ABILITY (& may try) to do you harm for you to take actions to defend yourself. You must assume that EVERY person COULD BE a criminal. Strangely, I don't really have a problem with that.

The problem is not assuming that every person could be a criminal & taking REASONABLE precautions to protect yourself. The problem is that when you place that assumption as your #1 priority in how you respond to ANY given situation you end up (as a matter of course) eventually violating someone's rights. Even criminal's have rights.

It may not happen all the time. It may not ever happen to one particular officer, if just through sheer luck. But it does happen. A lot. Way more than it should & the reason is because of the previously mentioned "#1 priority" mindset.

I may not assume that "all cops are untrustworthy" as a general statement (on the contrary) but I WILL assume that the individual one I am interacting with at any given moment COULD be untrustworthy & I will take action to lessen the danger to me if they are. Then again I'M not in any position to violate the cops rights, either. All I have to worry about is trying to defend mine.

I bet your a lawyer, right? If so I want you fighting for me in court.

 

[serpicostraight]

If I take this statement in absolute terms to it's logical conclusion, I conclude that "you" believe LEOs lives have no value.

Lets say an officer comes onto a scene where there are 5 armed men beating 1 guy. I believe that officer has to put his own safety above the safety of the one getting beaten. If he's calling for backup at the same time he's confronting the attackers what are his chances of getting out of there alive? Slim right! Now, if he holds back and waits for backup arrive, he has just put his safety first and you some how believe that's wrong?

I'm not saying they should never intervene and protect people. But a dead officer can't protect anyone right.

lets say an officer does his job and protects people and upholds the oath he took instead of saying ill just wait until a citizen gets killed before i step in because im scared until my backup gets here. if a cop is afraid to do his job maybe he needs to move on. there are plenty of day care centers hiring.

 

[finity]

If I take this statement in absolute terms to it's logical conclusion, I conclude that "you" believe LEOs lives have no value.

Absolutely not. That is not a "logical conclusion" at all.

It simply means that in the unfortunate event that if there was a choice to be made between an officers life & another "innocent" person's life. I would choose the innocent person EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I wish NO one any injury. I'm not saying that a cop looses their right to self-defense either. BUT THEY ARE GIVEN AN EXTRAORIDINARY POWER OVER US.

I as a non-LEO cannot just approach someone who I "think" may be doing something hinky "just to ask questions" then open up & blast them for reaching for what turns out to be a cell phone (or a wallet). A cop can. & the courts have said that it's OK. Officer safety & all.

Amadou Diallo shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets say an officer comes onto a scene where there are 5 armed men beating 1 guy. I believe that officer has to put his own safety above the safety of the one getting beaten. If he's calling for backup at the same time he's confronting the attackers what are his chances of getting out of there alive? Slim right! Now, if he holds back and waits for backup arrive, he has just put his safety first and you some how believe that's wrong?

Yes. I believe that's wrong.

Cops take an oath to "protect & serve" (used to at least - I've heard it may be different now. I don't know) & to uphold the Constitution. If you aren't going to actually "protect" then why take the oath?

We have entered into a social contract with them for them to provide "police protection" to the community in return for a salary & a pension. That community includes all of the individuals in it. If the police don't want the responsibility to provide that protection then either find another job or just come right out & be honest. Tell "the community" that it's not your responsibility. Let's see if the community will still want to pay you if you come right out & say "you're on your own. "We will not protect you at all". "We'll still come around to take the report afterward & clean up the mess but we're not going to prevent something bad from happening to you in the first place". Do you really think we would still pay for the police force?

I know it's that way now due to some BS SCOTUS rulings but EVERY PERSON I TELL THAT TO is completely surprised to find that out. MOST PEOPLE (rightly) assume that the police still have a duty to protect them. It is the police & the courts who have unilaterally changed the "contract" & then really didn't tell "the community" that they did it.

I'm not saying they should never intervene and protect people. But a dead officer can't protect anyone right.

And it seems we have the same end result with a live one as well. How do you think that would work if our soldiers used that same mentality while in battle. "I'm not going out there to fight those guys. What good am I to further defend the country if I'm dead."

 

[finity]

I bet your a lawyer, right? If so I want you fighting for me in court.

Nope. I wish though.

I seemed to have missed my calling (or so I've been told).

 

[BloodEclipse]

What a load of BS. The cops weren't able to engage the guys at Columbine on an even level. One cop, getting shot at through a window. The cop fired, but couldn't make entry. Cops can get killed, and committing would be suicide isn't part of the job description. Secondly, no one can do anything when bombs are factored in.

Not just there.

Officials defend response to N.Y. massacre - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

No bombs at this one.

While they defend what they did, wounded victims could have died in the time it took LEO to decide to enter.

I wonder how long they would have waited to enter if a LEO was among the wounded?

 

[Fargo]

If you make no assumption either way then why does that criteria even enter into the picture? You MUST assume that EVERY person HAS THE ABILITY (& may try) to do you harm for you to take actions to defend yourself. You must assume that EVERY person COULD BE a criminal. Strangely, I don't really have a problem with that.

The problem is not assuming that every person could be a criminal & taking REASONABLE precautions to protect yourself. The problem is that when you place that assumption as your #1 priority in how you respond to ANY given situation you end up (as a matter of course) eventually violating someone's rights. Even criminal's have rights.

I think we pretty much agree on this. Officer safety is a valid concern, but not the be-all-end-all determiner of reasonableness in police/public interaction.

However, when cops say use the oft-quoted number 1 rule of law enforcement about "going home at the end of your shift", I've never taken that as a "my safety comes first" type thing. I always took it as a "do your job well, but don't do anything stupid to get yourself killed."

I think this is highlighted by the fact that the LEO's held in highest honor are those that don't go home at the end of their shift because they died discharging their duties.

I do not believe that seizure of a legally carried firearm is legal under Indiana law just because you have a terry-stop. I definitely don't see how it is justified just because you are OC'ing. I think cuffing a dude, as apparently happened, was probably an illegal arrest/seizure.

I'm very interested in seeing how this all plays out.

Best,


Joe