2 minutes ago, Hystery said:

No, it didn't keep police lives from being killed. Cops died since police was created, that's a dangerous job. Beating up a suspect is not going to prevent another suspect from attempting to kill an officer, it's just going to increase tensions between civil society and police departments, that's all. When a guy decides he will resist the law, he will resist the law, no matter if he knows he'll receive a beating for it or not.

Being on a website centered around law enforcement doesn't mean you have to be on the cop side 100% of the time no matter what is happening or who is involved.

I'm not saying it stopped all killings but it did help save some I'm sure. It's how society treats the guys who fights the police that matters I suppose. Either way what I'm trying to say is policing was 10x easier and safer 20, 30 years ago. Now there's ten people recording, questioning an officer's judgement on something simple. I should probably just stop replying to this thread... I doubt I'm ever going to agree with you or Albo on this sort of subject.

 

Being on a law enforcement page doesn't mean you have to be on the police side of things all the time but it does mean you understand their side more than some dirtbag. It means you'd understand more of why the officer acted the way he did. I don't know how you guys could say that 20 years would be a high sentence for the guy in this video. I don't see how this doesn't piss you guys off. I doubt you guys plan on becoming officers otherwise you would. It's easy to say that they shouldn't beat someone up after they assaulted a cop or did something else shitty but you don't realize how officers are put into danger and how some die from stupid things like this. I recently had a LODD in a nearby city. 

 

The moral of this entire thread was to just get some heat off that I got from simply watching the video. The chills that ran down my back as I watched the video, heard the officer pleading for the guy to stop while he was being choked out. 

I understand some of you may disagree or agree that what I said shouldn't happen (The 20 year sentence or the bullet to the fucking skull) but I want to become a officer. I know the dangers that surround the job. I understand that I may be asked to put my life on the line, and possibly be killed to help protect a citizen however I DO NOT agree to being killed because some asshole doesn't want to be arrested. I DO NOT agree to being killed because some piece of shit watched the media about some cop in another state who I've never met beat someone up and so they kill me as "revenge". I DO NOT agree to being killed because someone doesn't want to follow the law, and own up to their own shit. I will sacrifice my life for someone else if it comes down to that but I will not be killed for some asshole's stupid reasoning. I see in this video, myself being assaulted, choked, punched, and in the process of being killed. 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I'm not saying it stopped all killings but it did help save some I'm sure. It's how society treats the guys who fights the police that matters I suppose. Either way what I'm trying to say is policing was 10x easier and safer 20, 30 years ago. Now there's ten people recording, questioning an officer's judgement on something simple. I should probably just stop replying to this thread... I doubt I'm ever going to agree with you or Albo on this sort of subject.

Well, it's not a matter of agreeing, but a matter of accepting some facts when they're presented to you. You say policing was easier and safer 20 or 30 years ago? Alright. 20 to 30 years ago, I guess you imply that policing was easier in the 70s, 80s and 90s, for various reasons. Let's take a look at a very, very simple list, shall we? The list of the fallen officers in the LAPD. Considering it's a city with a high crime rate and high population, it should mean officers are in great danger.

Between 1970 and 1979, 16 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 1980 and 1989, 20 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 1990 and 1999, 15 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 2000 and 2009, 7 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 2010 and 2016, 3 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Simple numbers, simple facts. As you can see, policing was NOT safer or easier in the past for various reasons and variables, and it IS safer and easier nowadays, for an equal number of reasons and variables. Allowing police officers to provide some police brutality wasn't saving lives, nor was it preventing crimes of assault on officers. It just increased the distrust between the public and the police.

 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Being on a law enforcement page doesn't mean you have to be on the police side of things all the time but it does mean you understand their side more than some dirtbag. It means you'd understand more of why the officer acted the way he did.

You can UNDERSTAND something and DISAGREE with it nonetheless, that's actually the only good way to disagree with something. So yes, you can understand that police officers have most of the time a harsh and difficult job, but you can also disagree on the behavior of some of them, or on some event that occured.

 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I don't know how you guys could say that 20 years would be a high sentence for the guy in this video. I don't see how this doesn't piss you guys off. I doubt you guys plan on becoming officers otherwise you would. It's easy to say that they shouldn't beat someone up after they assaulted a cop or did something else shitty but you don't realize how officers are put into danger and how some die from stupid things like this. I recently had a LODD in a nearby city.

How could we say that 20 years is a high sentence? 20 years, do you realize how long it is? Do you put it in context? Imagine that you're 30 years old right now. You fall asleep, and the next time you wake up, you're 50 years old. FIFTY. Literally a good quarter of your life is gone, if we put a lifespan of 80 years.

A sentence of 20 years means a person will pass 25% of their lives behind bars. That's a pretty high number to me, and more than enough for the guy in the video. I don't plan to be a police officer, that's true, but I don't see how this should come into account. Actually, it absolutely shouldn't, because if you're indeed planning to become a police officer or you actually are one, that means that as Albo says, you'd have a biased opinion on the situation.

 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

The moral of this entire thread was to just get some heat off that I got from simply watching the video. The chills that ran down my back as I watched the video, heard the officer pleading for the guy to stop while he was being choked out.

Well... I mean, you posted a forum thread, that opens it to discussion and debate, so you should have expected people to reply, with some of them disagreeing or arguing about one part or the other of the whole event. If you really want to vent about something on this website, I'd suggest the personal status updates.

 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I understand some of you may disagree or agree that what I said shouldn't happen (The 20 year sentence or the bullet to the fucking skull) but I want to become a officer. I know the dangers that surround the job.

If you want to become a police officer, I believe you'll need more self-control than what you showed to us so far, mate, because you got heated up pretty fast, first over a video, and second over a discussion. If you get upset so easily and can't keep a total self-control over yourself, and one day you face in real life a situation like the one in the video and see one of your fellow officers being assaulted, you might do a mistake that could cost you your career. 

 

9 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I understand that I may be asked to put my life on the line, and possibly be killed to help protect a citizen however I DO NOT agree to being killed because some asshole doesn't want to be arrested. I DO NOT agree to being killed because some piece of shit watched the media about some cop in another state who I've never met beat someone up and so they kill me as "revenge". I DO NOT agree to being killed because someone doesn't want to follow the law, and own up to their own shit. I will sacrifice my life for someone else if it comes down to that but I will not be killed for some asshole's stupid reasoning. I see in this video, myself being assaulted, choked, punched, and in the process of being killed. 

But... that's part of the job. Being a police officer is not all about protecting civilians, it's also about tracking down the bad guys who broke the law and will try to escape you by any mean necessary. If you really do not agree with that, you might want to change your plans of career. If you really want to be helpful to the public but do not want to put your life in danger when facing a person who broke the law and who tries to escape you, you might want to be more of a firefighter or paramedic, but not a cop.

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

But... that's part of the job. Being a police officer is not all about protecting civilians, it's also about tracking down the bad guys who broke the law and will try to escape you by any mean necessary. If you really do not agree with that, you might want to change your plans of career. If you really want to be helpful to the public but do not want to put your life in danger when facing a person who broke the law and who tries to escape you, you might want to be more of a firefighter or paramedic, but not a cop.

I'm going to post a link to a video. This is from a Former deputy in Sacramento CA, and has been all sorts of other things ranging from deputy sheriff to US Marshall. 

You say 20 years is much for attempted murder... This was obviously a attempted murder not a assault (Well assault is happening but it's an assault turning into a murder). The guy in this video is lucky as shit the officer didn't hit him when he fired his gun which was the intent to kill him to stop the situation. That already shows that he decided it was a deadly force situation. 20 years is petty. People do more than 20 for drugs. 

Here's the fact of a Attempted murder charge which SHOULD be the charge this shit head gets, I'm not entirely sure what charges he's getting but this should definitely be it if not already

" First-degree attempted murder carries greater penalties and often means a life sentence with the possibility of parole. Offenders typically spend at least 10 years in prison, although mandatory minimum sentences for attempting to murder a public official may be 10 to 15 years. "

In this video he talks about people going for guns. If this suspect had actually gotten that gun (If the officer wasn't smart enough to eject the clip so he couldn't use the gun after he fired it) than not only would the officer be dead but more than likely the bystanders that were yelling for the guy to stop hitting the officer. It's obvious as shit this guy was trying to kill the officer. Assault 1st degree is a petty sentence. This guy didn't run during the fight. He kept fighting the officer. Using deadly force himself on the officer (Choking is considered deadly force. Watch the video) and didn't stop when the officers showed up or when he heard sirens because he knew that he was going to jail. They knew who he was but he knew he was going to kill that cop or atleast try.

I understand my anger gets the best of me, but I know very well that this could help me with saving my life or another person's. It gives me the fight back if I ever am in a fight, gun battle or helping someone from a burning car or wreck. Anger and fear is what can help officers during a situation. https://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/5994546-Stressful-encounters-Why-anger-and-fear-can-be-good/

I also understand that being as you don't want to become an officer you may not understand an officer's perspective fully. I ride with officers all the time in my city, sometimes in my home town both are two totally different places (Large City VS. Small town) Though their policing usually is the same. I hang out with officers almost everyday at school, usually for an hour or more. We talk about all kinds of things, Sad things, happy things. Usually police work. The day after our KCKPD Detective was killed, I had to come into school to find out by seeing my officers wearing the mourning bang around their badge. Officers may get tempered at times or heated because of something simple "like a video or topic" about another officer being assaulted, possibly killed. But that's just a matters of how they react. I react mad because I see myself in 5 years as that officer (Though I would hopefully handle it differently so it wouldn't come to a fight, but I'm not going to second guess that officer cause he did what he thought was right). Officers are asked to put their life on the line for the citizens they protect but they don't, and shouldn't get killed because of stupid shit like this. This officer was nearly killed because this shithead has a felony theft warrant. He could of easily just ran after the first punch. This whole situation would of been different. Had he ran I would of not been so harsh, I wouldn't of said I'd put a bullet in his head but he choose to try and kill that officer so I choose to get mad at this POS. 

 

19 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I also understand that being as you don't want to become an officer you may not understand an officer's perspective fully. I ride with officers all the time in my city, sometimes in my home town both are two totally different places (Large City VS. Small town) Though their policing usually is the same. I hang out with officers almost everyday at school, usually for an hour or more. We talk about all kinds of things, Sad things, happy things. Usually police work. The day after our KCKPD Detective was killed, I had to come into school to find out by seeing my officers wearing the mourning bang around their badge. Officers may get tempered at times or heated because of something simple "like a video or topic" about another officer being assaulted, possibly killed. But that's just a matters of how they react. I react mad because I see myself in 5 years as that officer (Though I would hopefully handle it differently so it wouldn't come to a fight, but I'm not going to second guess that officer cause he did what he thought was right). Officers are asked to put their life on the line for the citizens they protect but they don't, and shouldn't get killed because of stupid shit like this. This officer was nearly killed because this shithead has a felony theft warrant. He could of easily just ran after the first punch. This whole situation would of been different. Had he ran I would of not been so harsh, I wouldn't of said I'd put a bullet in his head but he choose to try and kill that officer so I choose to get mad at this POS. 

You know, you say you're understanding them better and can put yourself in their shoes and all because you hang out around police officers often. Maybe I should mention that my own father is a police officer. Does this change the way I see the situation or change my opinion and judgement? No, it doesn't. That officer on the video could be my dad, and he could get killed. It still shouldn't affect the way I see things. That argument of 'I want to be an officer and I hang out with officers so I can get mad at that guy' is not really a valid one, it doesn't bring anything to the table, and it certainy isn't a general truth, since I don't think that way even though I am also directly in contact with a police officer on a regular basis.

As I said, being a police officer doesn't only require you to protect the public, it also requires you to track down the bad guys to put them behind bars. And sometimes, those bad guys try to run away at all costs. That's how it is, that's how the job is. If you think you 'shouldn't get killed because of stupid shit like this', then maybe it's not the job you're looking for.

Edited May 21, 20169 yr by Hystery

3 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Maybe I should mention that my own father is a police officer. 

If you think you 'shouldn't get killed because of stupid shit like this', then maybe it's not the job you're looking for.

Than you wouldn't be mad if someone assaulted, and tried to kill your dad? Only got the minimum sentence. I certainly would. I don't even know your dad but I'd still be mad. 

True, just because I talk to officers daily and learn all sorts of policing techniques doesn't mean I know how to police but it does help me though they've all got major police backgrounds. Former Marine and former Counter-terrorism for our police department, a former Las Vegas Metro officer and a former deputy Sheriff. I talk to them daily, ask them questions daily. They usually are police based questions. How would they handle something. What I should do If I encounter something like this and so on. They tell me how policing really is without the PR bs

I don't think I should get killed because of stupid shit like this. I may very well be killed by stupid shitheads like this but I want to know that my death wouldn't be in vain. 

I've tried Fire & EMS and it just ain't for me. I did a year of training with them and just simply isn't my thing. I did a few weeks of police training and fell in love with it. Policing is what I'm meant for. If you knew me in person you'd know I'm passionate for it. 

53 hours. 

 

 

 

This officer needs to be re mediated in defensive tactics that was painful to watch. 

3 hours ago, stevizzle123 said:

This officer needs to be re mediated in defensive tactics that was painful to watch. 

That may be right... But he did stay in the fight for about 4 minutes. And in training to become a officer you fight off someone trying to go for your gun for 2 minutes and that's draining and shit so it's fantastic he was able to stay in the fight that long. Kept the guy from using his gun and when the officer used his gun in an attempt to stop the fight he was smart enough to eject the clip and render the gun useless. 

14 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

That may be right... But he did stay in the fight for about 4 minutes. And in training to become a officer you fight off someone trying to go for your gun for 2 minutes and that's draining and shit so it's fantastic he was able to stay in the fight that long. Kept the guy from using his gun and when the officer used his gun in an attempt to stop the fight he was smart enough to eject the clip and render the gun useless. 

Mate there are also european kids here on the forum, Europe and US are 2 different monsters, comparing them is being ignorant, not even universities researches could compare them I wonder if guys on a forum can by writing 5 sentences. 

The law in your country is much different from the one in europe, except Great Britain, but still very different. 
The video is a decisive piece of evidence, so giving a minimum when you have a video and when the suspect has a criminal record is not so fair minded in my opinion. That would be an attempted murder of a public official in the line of duty: I expect more than 10 years in the USA, and the question is if he will be doing all 10 years or just get out earlier for good conduct.

 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by LtRob

On 20.05.2016 at 10:27 PM, Albo1125 said:

Taser was definitely the way to go here. Why would you shoot the suspect if he's unarmed and there are more than enough officers to bring him under control? Had they done so, the officers would definitely have been under serious scrutiny, and rightfully so - courts deal out the punishments, officers bring suspects before the courts. The taser deployment worked out perfectly.

Just curious, in case a suspect is actively trying to get a hold on the service weapon what does British law say on the firearms usage? In my country this is one of several reasons for weapon usage, for example.

1 hour ago, Hastings said:

Just curious, in case a suspect is actively trying to get a hold on the service weapon what does British law say on the firearms usage? In my country this is one of several reasons for weapon usage, for example.

British officers are routinely not equipped with a firearm. Only goes to illustrate another great benefit of this. 

I've never heard of such a case in Britain before. If firearms officers are deployed, they initially use tasers in all confrontations (unless the suspect is actively shooting/causing serious public threats, of course). They ensure the suspect is under control before approaching, therefore making cases like this video nonexistent. 

When the officers in the video arrived the suspect was not reaching for any weapon. At that time the ither officers did not know he may have reached for one. Therefore, they correctly chose to deploy their taser and had no reason to deploy firearms. This is a great mentality which, as I explained above, is extremely successful and prevalent.

It may also explain why in Britain there were fewer citizens killed during the 20th century compared to the US in 2014. 

Officer casualties are also extremely rare. Not sure of the exact figures but most years no officers are killed at all. 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Albo1125

I highly doubt they would shoot him, Firearms officers here also carry Tasers, as it's one of their non-lethal options. On-top of that, Firearms officers here also patrol in two's, so if there is someone going for their weapon, they would restrain, taser or pepper spray them. They'd also have the man advantage, and due to how the training of Armed Police is over here, they'd more than likely be able to do so.

I'd have to agree with what someone said above, both the United Kingdom and the United States are different in terms of how the Police and why they do so, however I have to admit. I think the American Police could learn from the tactics, and they need to value lives of cops more, over the ability to patrol over larger distances. I believe most places have single-crewed units in order to patrol larger areas, that's just idiotic, because what's the point of an out-numbered cop?

1 minute ago, Albo1125 said:

British officers are routinely not equipped with a firearm. Only goes to illustrate another great benefit of this. 

I've never heard of such a case in Britain before. If firearms officers are deployed, they initially use tasers in all confrontations (unless the suspect is actively shooting/causing serious public threats, of course). They ensure the suspect is under control before approaching, therefore making cases like this video nonexistent. 

When the officers in the video arrived the suspect was not reaching for any weapon. At that time the ither officers did not know he may have reached for one. Therefore, they correctly chose to deploy their taser and had no reason to deploy firearms. This is a great mentality which, as I explained above, is extremely successful and prevalent.

It may also explain why in Britain there were fewer citizens killed during the 20th century compared to the US in 2014. 

Actually alot of British officers are starting to carry pistols. They're testing it out.

Right an the difference between how british officers use of force is different from ours is that our officers actually have to go up and deal with the suspects while the officers are armed, and usually british citizens don't have firearms themselves. And your guys' armed officers have rifles usually not pistols in their hands, and they don't interact like this officer did. This officer was trying to arrest the person and got surprise attacked and that's how things started going down hill real quickly, with british officers ya'll usually have two officers a car and don't have guns. This isn't the case. Officers can't make sure the suspect is "under control" before approaching... That's unrealistic in situations like in this video. 

3 minutes ago, Ben said:

I highly doubt the would shoot him, Firearms officers here also carry Tasers, as it's one of their non-lethal options. On-top of that, Firearms officers here also patrol in two's, so if there is someone going for their weapon, they would restrain, taser or pepper spray them. They'd also have the man advantage, and due to how the training of Armed Police is over here, they'd more than likely be able to do so.

I'd have to agree with what someone said above, both the United Kingdom and the United States are different in terms of how the Police and why they do so, however I have to admit. I think the American Police could learn from the tactics, and they need to value lives of cops more, over the ability to patrol over larger distances. I believe most places have single-crewed units in order to patrol larger areas, that's just idiotic, because what's the point of an out-numbered cop?

Right ben, that's kind of what I'm trying to explain. It differs on how US deals with situations than UK officers. You're officers are two to a car (This department in the video has one to a car) and this officer alone is armed and fighting to not only stop the attack but also to try and keep his weapons from being used on himself. And then there's the case that UK officers make sure people are "under control" before approaching... lol I'm sorry but that just doesn't make much sense. The officer in this video clearly thought he was in control, and was handcuffing the guy and then gets attacked... That could easily happen in both US and UK only difference is in the UK there'd be another officer fighting the guy too... Maybe even a citizen would help out. In the US this officer is alone, fighting for a few minutes (Which is tough as shit when you're in fight or flight and you're adrenaline is pumping your heart so fast in a life or death situation like here) and no one helps him... Just screams at the suspect to "stop" lol Like that's gonna help Ma'am. 

Right... I completely agree that it's dumb to have one officer to a car in a large area like here but that's how budgets get dealt with since politics still have to use some of budget money to fund their own campaign... Where I live, I think every department does 1 to a car but there's alot of nearby units unlike this video... Highway patrol and smaller towns I feel the worst about... I thought about being a state trooper (Kansas highway patrolmen) but If I ever got into a fight or gun-battle... I'd be completely fucked. Probably end up dead in a matter of minutes. 

It's quite sad to see how budgets dictate the safety of Officers when they are patrolling. However I must say that officers here only have Assault Rifles out when given permission by a high-ranking Supervisor, usually at the rank of Inspector or a specialized Armed Response Supervisor. They mainly have Pistols on hand, and here they also don't wait until the person is under control, well unless the know the person is armed. 

Armed Police here regularly assist in normal policing which includes restraining violent offenders, even when they are carrying. If you haven't seen it, you should watch the latest season of Police Interceptors, that's primarily following Armed Police now, and it gives and insight to how they actually join in pursuits, and domestics even when armed. Armed Police here can be in situations such as the one in the video.  

13 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Actually alot of British officers are starting to carry pistols. They're testing it out.

You are deeply mistaken...Let me explain.

I believe you're referring to the 'new' armed officers the government is recruiting to counter the terrorism threat in major cities.

These 'new' officers are simply bringing the number back up to what it was back in 2010 when the government made major cuts to the police budget, seeing a decline in the number of both unarmed and armed officers. Turns out, the armed officers are now needed again, leading to a massive excess cost. Gotta love Theresa ^.^

Even with those 'extra' armed officers an overwhelming majority of British officers are not equipped with a firearm (again, not sure of the exact figure but probably around 85%). The style of British policing has always been routinely non firearm carrying officers with specialist armed response teams, and that hasn't changed.

What we are seeing, though, is an increase in the number of officers carrying tasers, which I'm a big fan of.

13 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Right an the difference between how british officers use of force is different from ours is that our officers actually have to go up and deal with the suspects while the officers are armed, and usually british citizens don't have firearms themselves. And your guys' armed officers have rifles usually not pistols in their hands, and they don't interact like this officer did. This officer was trying to arrest the person and got surprise attacked and that's how things started going down hill real quickly, with british officers ya'll usually have two officers a car and don't have guns. This isn't the case. Officers can't make sure the suspect is "under control" before approaching... That's unrealistic in situations like in this video. 

I was simply explaining the way British police handle things, not saying that the officer in the video should or must have done so.

What I said about the video specifically was that when the other officers arrived the suspect was not reaching for any weapon nor was he attempting to, so at the time the other officers had no idea the suspect may have reached for one before. Therefore, they correctly deployed their taser and had no reason whatsoever to deploy firearms. This is a mentality that I admire and should become standard in the US.

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Albo1125

2 minutes ago, Albo1125 said:

What I said about the video specifically was that when the other officers arrived the suspect was not reaching for any weapon nor was he attempting to, so at the time the other officers had no idea the suspect may have reached for one before. Therefore, they correctly deployed their taser and had no reason whatsoever to deploy firearms. This is a mentality that I admire and should become standard.

When they pull up the suspect has his arms around the officers neck and head in an attempt to use a choke hold which is a deadly force... Cause that can usually break a neck, wind pipe, all sorts of things. Officers are trained to use choke holds but they're trained in it, and know what it can do and how to do it... This suspect obviously ain't an officer and isn't trying to take the officer into custody... He's trying to kill him. Just the choke hold alone is a deadly force authorization, not to mention the officer screaming "Shoot him shoot him shoot him" Had the responding officers known that the officer discharged his weapon, had a choke hold used against him and a few other things it would of been a gun for sure rather than a taser... All the responding officers knew was that he was just being assaulted which in their mind was probably just a few little punchs and the officer took control but obviously that isn't what happened. It's a information thing. They used the taser because they didn't know about all the other stuff because the citizen that was calling the dispatch letting them know what was going on, was more busy screaming at the suspect to "stop" which ain't gonna do shit but put her in the line of sights for him once he kills the cop. Tasers aren't a thing you should use all the time, and shouldn't be your main use of force choice, your gun should be. You kind of remind me of those kind of people who thinks officers shouldn't have guns, only tasers... An unrealistic person. 

20 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

You kind of remind me of those kind of people who thinks officers shouldn't have guns, only tasers...

Routinely, yes, definitely. Officers equipped with firearms should definitely be a specialist part of a police force, though.

20 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

An unrealistic person. 

In your book, perhaps - however look at the various countries where such a policy realistically works perfectly well (if not much better). Again, as I said before, your attack on me personally shows your lack of argumentation.

20 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Tasers aren't a thing you should use all the time, and shouldn't be your main use of force choice, your gun should be.

I definitely disagree.

As I referred to before, in Britain there were fewer citizens killed during the 20th century compared to the US in March 2015 (twice more in fact). Officer deaths in the US are much higher, too, with 25 officers being killed in the UK during 2000-2014 compared to 2445 officers in the US. Taking into account the difference in officer numbers, the US still had an officer death rate that's 10 times as much as in the UK. I'm referring to this not say British police specifically are better than the US police, just to show how different mentalities yield different results (although, adding a touch of subjectivity here, I find the US death figures disgusting).

While I'm not saying that US officers should just ditch their guns and run around unarmed (the outrageous gun laws will see to this), I do strongly think that US police officers need a mentality change towards (lethal) force as a whole - and your previous posts have made this necessity even clearer. 

As you say you're an aspiring police officer in the US, you've been trained into a certain way of thinking about this kind of thing. Nothing I can say is going to change that. 

That being said, we've both made our opinions known and that was the point of this interesting debate. They're obviously not going to change 

 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Albo1125

I'm going to have to completely disagree against using a firearm as your main weapon of choice, you should value everyone's lives, you shouldn't be using your gun, because not everyone is going to be a person who wants to kill you. If someone uses a firearm in a situation where a taser should be used, they shouldn't be a cop.

6 minutes ago, Albo1125 said:

As I referred to before, in Britain there were fewer citizens killed during the 20th century compared to the US in March 2015 (twice more in fact). Officer deaths in the US are much higher, too, with 25 officers being killed in the UK during 2000-2014 compared to 2445 officers in the US. Taking into account the difference in officer numbers, the US still had an officer death rate that's 10 times as much as in the UK. I'm referring to this not say British police specifically are better than the US police, just to show how different mentalities yield different results.

While I'm not saying that US officers should just ditch their guns and run around unarmed (the outrageous gun laws will see to this), I do strongly think that US police officers need a mentality change towards (lethal) force as a whole - and your previous posts have made this necessity even clearer. 

As you say you're an aspiring police officer in the US, you've been trained into a certain way of thinking about this kind of thing. Nothing I can say is going to change that. 

And does this include how differently things are in the two countries? One outlawed guns for the large majority of its citizens while the other allows people to walk freely with an AR15 (Which is usually the best rifle a regular patrol officer has access to...) Perhaps it maintains around the fact that the societies between the two are completely different as well. In the UK there isn't (I'm sure of it. Not factually but logically) as many "sovereign citizens", "cop blockers" or just all around assholes. I'm sure there is some in the UK but definitely not as many as the US. People in the US just hate officers more than the people in the UK about their officers. You can say it's because of the "distrust" but that's honestly crap. It's the way they're told, and how they think. Our news agencies usually center around police involved shootings... Almost never about the good things. They'll report an officer shot a person one week but won't report the good thing another officer did. My first ride along, we pulled over a vehicle with expired tags and it was an elderly female and she had her tags in her car but she's too old to be getting down on her knees and changing out the plates so we offered to change them for us... Obviously that never made it to the news. 

 

US Officers are never going to go unarmed until the general public goes unarmed... And does that include the gang bangers who carry all the time? I can tell you right now, they outway the actual law abiding gun owners. 

And if we do outlaw guns like the UK, what's to stop the cartels or drug smugglers to start smuggling guns? And what's to stop more events from happening? My department has a SWAT team which can be considered like your guys' specialized armed units however if there was a shooting, it'd take them ages to actually get to it. And if they patrolled it'd be like K9 units... One may already be on a call, and can't leave so you're in a gun battle by yourself without a gun... Our departments don't have nearly as much budgets as some others do. UK I'm not sure about their budgets but ours suck major ass... We can barely keep regular patrol officers on the cut, specialized armed units would mostly be out of the question.

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

I'm going to have to completely disagree against using a firearm as your main weapon of choice, you should value everyone's lives, you shouldn't be using your gun, because not everyone is going to be a person who wants to kill you. If someone uses a firearm in a situation where a taser should be used, they shouldn't be a cop.

That's not really what I'm trying to say... I'm trying to explain that if there's a armed and dangerous or literally anything and you think they won't obey your lawful orders, you go for your taser and they end up doing something that hurts yourself, themselves or someone else Guess who's fault that is? Plus if you pull a gun guess who's more likely to comply, it doesn't even have to be loaded or used. I understand half of what you guys are saying and agree to it but... It depends on the situation, the officer and everything and everyone involved. Outcomes can be better or worse if used by a taser than a gun, same with a gun. Pulling out a gun can better or worsen a situation. Officers are trained on how to deal with things but that doesn't mean their training is actually going to be helpful. Let's say they train you to deal with a armed and dangerous person that's been spotted with a pistol... You handle it the way you're trained good for you. Now let's say you encounter two or three people with machine guns (Like mini-uzis or something... Isn't that hard to believe, there's some gangs in KCMO that regularly use those type of guns) and were just spotted jacking someone's car at gun point... How do you handle it? Your academy training didn't include it. You do what you think is best. 

4 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

People in the US just hate officers more than the people in the UK about their officers. You can say it's because of the "distrust" but that's honestly crap.

If this is the case (I wouldn't be statistically sure) there can be a variety of reasons. Obviously, distrust is one of the more important ones, which you of all people would know about as you claim to be a training officer.

2 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Our news agencies usually center around police involved shootings... Almost never about the good things. They'll report an officer shot a person one week but won't report the good thing another officer did. My first ride along, we pulled over a vehicle with expired tags and it was an elderly female and she had her tags in her car but she's too old to be getting down on her knees and changing out the plates so we offered to change them for us... Obviously that never made it to the news. 

Welcome to the world ^.^ This is the case everywhere, even in the UK!

3 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

US Officers are never going to go unarmed until the general public goes unarmed... And does that include the gang bangers who carry all the time? I can tell you right now, they outway the actual law abiding gun owners. 

Did you read my post? I suggested US officers should not go unarmed due to the outrageous gun laws.

6 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

UK I'm not sure about their budgets but ours suck major ass... We can barely keep regular patrol officers on the cut, specialized armed units would mostly be out of the question.

In my post above, I believe I already mentioned that the UK police budgets have been dramatically cut since 2010, leading to the #ThinBlueLine as we know it today. Hell, it was on the verge of becoming an emergency only service only a few months ago 

However, I'm not discussing US vs UK police here. I'm discussing US police mentality towards (lethal) force, and we seem to be straying off the subject.

1 minute ago, Albo1125 said:

If this is the case (I wouldn't be statistically sure) there can be a variety of reasons. Obviously, distrust is one of the more important ones, which you of all people would know about as you claim to be a training officer.

lol wait wut? I'm wanting to become an officer, and I do some basic training with my department. (Felony traffic stops, hand cuffing and all sorts of other basic things, taser training included, along with a police "challenge" week which allows us to go to a shooting range and test our ability under pressure or something. (Mainly cause it's just fun) plus we meet with SWAT, and K9 and other stuff) 

 

Right, I know. I'm just stating our officer will not ever go unarmed until everyone else does. (Unless we get some liberal shithead as a political leader. Then we're all our SOL)

 

but UK Police budgets... Are they all together or something? How does it work? Are the police departments mostly all together? We have all sorts of different things, and different ways budgets are done. Small towns = Small tax = Small budgets for police. We also have local police, county sheriffs, and state wide police. Not counting FBI, DEA, ATF and all the other kind of feds. And like I said, alot of some of the budgets go to the actual politic leaders, and for their campaigns to have them re-elected.