3 ms·

If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behi

by jimzvz 13y ago

If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift. Uh, shouldn't this information be available based on some kind of investigation that the warrant is based on? This argument leads to the "shoot first, ask questions later" ethos. It is exactly what leads to innocent people and animals being murdered by police. The police should not shift the risks of their job on to the public.

Spooky23 13y ago
Easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say. I'm not justifying the behavior, I'm trying to illuminate why it's happening. You're attributing responsibility for a situation to people who don't make decisions. Society has made choices (let's move to the burbs to get away from those poor folk) and your representatives have enacted laws that have created all sorts of absurd situations. And we drop policemen into the middle of the chaos to exert some control over it.
- jimzvz 13y ago
  Regardless of where the responsibility lies, it is unacceptable. I agree that the actual police officer does not control policies but they do control their own actions and it is part of the job description to put their lives on the line for the benefit of the general public. If they are not happy with that then they can leave the job that they voluntarily entered. As soon as they draw a gun on someone without clear evidence that that person poses and immediate risk to themselves (police) or others, they are putting their safety above that of the general public. If they do not wish to put public safety above their own, then they need to find a new job.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Emergency services have to put their own safety above the public safety. It's how they're trained, and it's necessary. If you sacrifice an officer of the emergency service for a member of the public, you now have one more member of the public... well, actually you don't because the officer is also a member of the public... and you have also lost a trained officer, who can't respond to future requests for help, so the future service to the public suffers. And not all areas find it easy to recruit for the emergency services.
    - mabhatter 13y ago
      POLICE are not "emergency services" when they get to carry guns. EMTS and Firemen do just fine without guns. Why can't Police?
- baddox 13y ago
  Yes, it is easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say, and since those guys are the ones paying for the small chance to one day be murdered by a police officer, it should be easy to say, and should be said confidently.
- lmartel 13y ago
  If a cop has to choose between his own safety and the safety of innocent citizens, he should either choose the latter or find a new profession. He chose to become a policeman, knowing the risks; innocent people terrorized and murdered by the police never had that luxury.
- brianlweiner 13y ago
  Police actively lobby for many of the tactics and policies being decried in these articles. They routinely oppose state level drug decriminalization (with sheriffs and other local police actively coordinating with DEA / Federal officials to undermine local / state policies). They also oppose and actively hinder investigations into police malfeasance, firing of corrupt / incompetent officers, and many other forms of limited civilian oversight. The idea that police officers and their ilk (correctional officers, district attorneys, etc) don't have an active hand in the types of laws and policies being practice in America is not at all true.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  > Easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say. I'm sorry but last time I checked there was no police draft, these officers chose this line of work and were made aware or the risks and responsibilities (and pay) involved. I agree that the sureounding circumstances are partially at fault, but you make it seem as if these guys are bystanders thrown into thee situations with no culpability of their own.

by jimzvz 13y ago

Spooky23 13y ago

Easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say. I'm not justifying the behavior, I'm trying to illuminate why it's happening. You're attributing responsibility for a situation to people who don't make decisions. Society has made choices (let's move to the burbs to get away from those poor folk) and your representatives have enacted laws that have created all sorts of absurd situations. And we drop policemen into the middle of the chaos to exert some control over it.

jimzvz 13y ago
Regardless of where the responsibility lies, it is unacceptable. I agree that the actual police officer does not control policies but they do control their own actions and it is part of the job description to put their lives on the line for the benefit of the general public. If they are not happy with that then they can leave the job that they voluntarily entered. As soon as they draw a gun on someone without clear evidence that that person poses and immediate risk to themselves (police) or others, they are putting their safety above that of the general public. If they do not wish to put public safety above their own, then they need to find a new job.
- vacri 13y ago
  Emergency services have to put their own safety above the public safety. It's how they're trained, and it's necessary. If you sacrifice an officer of the emergency service for a member of the public, you now have one more member of the public... well, actually you don't because the officer is also a member of the public... and you have also lost a trained officer, who can't respond to future requests for help, so the future service to the public suffers. And not all areas find it easy to recruit for the emergency services.
  - mabhatter 13y ago
    POLICE are not "emergency services" when they get to carry guns. EMTS and Firemen do just fine without guns. Why can't Police?
baddox 13y ago
Yes, it is easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say, and since those guys are the ones paying for the small chance to one day be murdered by a police officer, it should be easy to say, and should be said confidently.
lmartel 13y ago
If a cop has to choose between his own safety and the safety of innocent citizens, he should either choose the latter or find a new profession. He chose to become a policeman, knowing the risks; innocent people terrorized and murdered by the police never had that luxury.
brianlweiner 13y ago
Police actively lobby for many of the tactics and policies being decried in these articles. They routinely oppose state level drug decriminalization (with sheriffs and other local police actively coordinating with DEA / Federal officials to undermine local / state policies). They also oppose and actively hinder investigations into police malfeasance, firing of corrupt / incompetent officers, and many other forms of limited civilian oversight. The idea that police officers and their ilk (correctional officers, district attorneys, etc) don't have an active hand in the types of laws and policies being practice in America is not at all true.
tolmasky 13y ago
> Easy for a guy sitting in a chair in front of a computer to say. I'm sorry but last time I checked there was no police draft, these officers chose this line of work and were made aware or the risks and responsibilities (and pay) involved. I agree that the sureounding circumstances are partially at fault, but you make it seem as if these guys are bystanders thrown into thee situations with no culpability of their own.