Officer beaten, scared to draw gun because of media outcry

[steveh_131]

Really. Rant on about big brother with no disagreement from me but you are not answering the question posed to you.

It actually answers the question quite fully. It traces this problem back to its source. A gigantic government nanny state.

Are you saying that stopping violent criminals is now cause to see police as the enemy?

I am saying that turning non-violent acts into crimes creates criminals, who then see the police as the enemy.

 

[churchmouse]

It actually answers the question quite fully. It traces this problem back to its source. A gigantic government nanny state.



I am saying that turning non-violent acts into crimes creates criminals, who then see the police as the enemy.

Your answer was an oppressive Gov. not a nanny state.
Before you argue for both that is not going to fly.

 

[SSGSAD]

This is exactly what the thugs thieves and villains have been pushing us towards. Free rein.

NOT as long as WE have GUNS, and are WILLING to USE THEM !!!!!

THAT is is IMPORTANT to VOTE, in Nov. .....

Remember there is an OPEN seat on the SCOTUS, and there may be as many

as 3 appointments, in the next 8 years !!!!!

 

[oldpink]

It actually answers the question quite fully. It traces this problem back to its source. A gigantic government nanny state.



I am saying that turning non-violent acts into crimes creates criminals, who then see the police as the enemy.

Just in case you haven't noticed, walking around with a gun in a threatening manner isn't "nanny state."
Prattle on all you want about non-violent acts (libertarian-speak for drugs), but nothing but the most imbecilic or the most criminal thinks it's okay to refuse to comply in such a situation.

 

[steveh_131]

Just in case you haven't noticed, walking around with a gun in a threatening manner isn't "nanny state."
Prattle on all you want about non-violent acts (libertarian-speak for drugs), but nothing but the most imbecilic or the most criminal thinks it's okay to refuse to comply in such a situation.

You're missing my point.

Of course, threatening people with a gun can and should result in you being shot and killed by police officers. I agree completely.

However, the reason the police are at odds with such a large percentage of the populace is because we use them as nanny state babysitters. They should be respected and revered as keepers of the peace, protectors of the innocent. Instead we use them to fight for political agendas like the war on drugs. Or harassing people who carry a gun without government permission. Or "stop and frisk" nonsense. Or taxing commuters on the side of the road.

Less laws, less government and less interference in our lives would make police officers safer, more effective, and offer them the respect their position deserves.

 

[Libertarian01]

I agree with Steve in that laws are not being written just to stop people from doing harm, whether directly or indirectly. They have been morphing for the past many decades into risk avoidance laws, which I do not believe in.

Some examples are: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, children playing alone laws, public intoxication, etc. There are more but these are the easy ones that come to mind. NONE of these actions harm other people, yet the police are the enforcement branch that whips the public into line, or at least they are seen as such.

Drug use is in there as well, as is prostitution, both areas most libertarians want to see at a minimum decriminalized. But those aren't the only areas where police are regulating risk.

As more risks have become criminalized more people are feeling oppressed. Some feel it more than others, yet everyone is beginning to feel it to some extent or the other. What should have happened is some sort of revolt by top brass saying we don't enforce risk, but they couldn't do that.

I feel really bad as LEO's are becoming shrinks, social workers, child advocates, law enforcement, social planners, etc. There must come a point where we stop asking them to do too much crap. They are overwhelmed already and they must be much more stressed out than their forebears just a few generations ago.

I respect them and I pity them at the same time.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

"It's called being 'pro-ACT-ive'"

That's what my BIL told me in his condescension voice after I made essentially the same argument about those kinds of laws. He actually separated the syllables with a staccato exaggeration.

I said, no, it's called punishing the whole classroom for one kid acting up.

I agree with Steve in that laws are not being written just to stop people from doing harm, whether directly or indirectly. They have been morphing for the past many decades into risk avoidance laws, which I do not believe in.

Some examples are: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, children playing alone laws, public intoxication, etc. There are more but these are the easy ones that come to mind. NONE of these actions harm other people, yet the police are the enforcement branch that whips the public into line, or at least they are seen as such.

Drug use is in there as well, as is prostitution, both areas most libertarians want to see at a minimum decriminalized. But those aren't the only areas where police are regulating risk.

As more risks have become criminalized more people are feeling oppressed. Some feel it more than others, yet everyone is beginning to feel it to some extent or the other. What should have happened is some sort of revolt by top brass saying we don't enforce risk, but they couldn't do that.

I feel really bad as LEO's are becoming shrinks, social workers, child advocates, law enforcement, social planners, etc. There must come a point where we stop asking them to do too much crap. They are overwhelmed already and they must be much more stressed out than their forebears just a few generations ago.

I respect them and I pity them at the same time.

Regards,

Doug

 

[steveh_131]

I agree with Steve in that laws are not being written just to stop people from doing harm, whether directly or indirectly. They have been morphing for the past many decades into risk avoidance laws, which I do not believe in.

Some examples are: seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, children playing alone laws, public intoxication, etc. There are more but these are the easy ones that come to mind. NONE of these actions harm other people, yet the police are the enforcement branch that whips the public into line, or at least they are seen as such.

Drug use is in there as well, as is prostitution, both areas most libertarians want to see at a minimum decriminalized. But those aren't the only areas where police are regulating risk.

As more risks have become criminalized more people are feeling oppressed. Some feel it more than others, yet everyone is beginning to feel it to some extent or the other. What should have happened is some sort of revolt by top brass saying we don't enforce risk, but they couldn't do that.

I feel really bad as LEO's are becoming shrinks, social workers, child advocates, law enforcement, social planners, etc. There must come a point where we stop asking them to do too much crap. They are overwhelmed already and they must be much more stressed out than their forebears just a few generations ago.

I respect them and I pity them at the same time.

Regards,

Doug

I agree with all of this - except top brass could put a stop to it. Stop creating quotas and expectations for their officers. Allow their officers to ignore the breaking of unjust laws. Focus them on crimes of force and violence only. Get them off the side of the road. Stop putting them in harms way, pulling over complete strangers for stupid reasons.

I can empathize with their difficulties in deciding if someone needs to be shot at a moment's notice. It shouldn't come to that nearly as often as it does. When an officer is asked to engage in a forceful encounter with an individual, they should only be doing so with a good enough reason that nobody would fault them for having their gun drawn and trigger finger at the ready.

Instead, they have to engage with unknowns all day, every day - and must go into each encounter with no idea what to expect. It's ridiculous, dangerous and stupid for all of us.

 

[Libertarian01]

I agree with all of this - except top brass could put a stop to it. Stop creating quotas and expectations for their officers. Allow their officers to ignore the breaking of unjust laws. Focus them on crimes of force and violence only. Get them off the side of the road. Stop putting them in harms way, pulling over complete strangers for stupid reasons.

I can empathize with their difficulties in deciding if someone needs to be shot at a moment's notice. It shouldn't come to that nearly as often as it does. When an officer is asked to engage in a forceful encounter with an individual, they should only be doing so with a good enough reason that nobody would fault them for having their gun drawn and trigger finger at the ready.

Instead, they have to engage with unknowns all day, every day - and must go into each encounter with no idea what to expect. It's ridiculous, dangerous and stupid for all of us.

The problem is Steve that most top brass are appointed, and anytime anyone might(?) give the wrong signal they can be replaced by the mayor and/or city council as whatever state law applies. Then another schmoozer will be appointed who can tow the line. Besides, the chief of police wouldn't be there in most cities if he/she weren't already proven to do the mayors bidding.

The only group of high ranking LEO that could tell the bureaucrats to pound sand are sheriff's as they are elected. Even they can be bullied by a noisy group of busybodies, not as much, but they can.

Regards,

Doug

 

[steveh_131]

The problem is Steve that most top brass are appointed, and anytime anyone might(?) give the wrong signal they can be replaced by the mayor and/or city council as whatever state law applies. Then another schmoozer will be appointed who can tow the line. Besides, the chief of police wouldn't be there in most cities if he/she weren't already proven to do the mayors bidding.

The only group of high ranking LEO that could tell the bureaucrats to pound sand are sheriff's as they are elected. Even they can be bullied by a noisy group of busybodies, not as much, but they can.

Regards,

Doug

Very good points, Doug. It's truly a shame.

 

[churchmouse]

The problem is Steve that most top brass are appointed, and anytime anyone might(?) give the wrong signal they can be replaced by the mayor and/or city council as whatever state law applies. Then another schmoozer will be appointed who can tow the line. Besides, the chief of police wouldn't be there in most cities if he/she weren't already proven to do the mayors bidding.

The only group of high ranking LEO that could tell the bureaucrats to pound sand are sheriff's as they are elected. Even they can be bullied by a noisy group of busybodies, not as much, but they can.

Regards,

Doug

This has been SOP since forever.

 

[Libertarian01]

It was pointed out to me once that if you watch any city mayors presentation to a federal commission or committee on crime in their area they ALWAYS bring their chief of police, never the sheriff.

The chief of police is like a puppet that can be kept on message without undermining his Lordship the High Mayor. The sheriff on the other hand, another elected official who cannot be controlled or intimidated, providing the sheriff has a backbone at all.

Even IF the sheriff is of the same party and philosophical bent as the mayor he still may say things the mayor doesn't want mentioned. The chiefs are easier to keep in line than sheriffs, and thus the reason that mayors never bring sheriffs to back them up.

Doug

 

[oldpink]

It was pointed out to me once that if you watch any city mayors presentation to a federal commission or committee on crime in their area they ALWAYS bring their chief of police, never the sheriff.

The chief of police is like a puppet that can be kept on message without undermining his Lordship the High Mayor. The sheriff on the other hand, another elected official who cannot be controlled or intimidated, providing the sheriff has a backbone at all.

Even IF the sheriff is of the same party and philosophical bent as the mayor he still may say things the mayor doesn't want mentioned. The chiefs are easier to keep in line than sheriffs, and thus the reason that mayors never bring sheriffs to back them up.

Doug

That's also why the International Association of Chiefs of Police is routinely anti-gun, while the National Sheriffs Association is pro-gun.

 

[Libertarian01]

A very good observation.

It is amazing how two (2) similarly aligned groups can have such a divergent view on the same issue.

Doug

 

[pudly]

Similarly aligned? Isn't that kinda like saying Comey and "rule of law" are similarly aligned?

(And yes, I know what you meant)