l3ubba

They do teach this in schools to the teachers already, of course it is slightly different because the teachers do not run out of the school leaving their children behind but the basic concept is still the same: run, hide, fight. We even take a course similar to that in the military, although ours is called Anti-Terrorism Level 1 and it goes way more in depth than just active shooters. It is mandatory for everyone to take it once a year (although they have made me do it like 3 times in the past 6 months lol). http://www.myarmyonesource.com/cmsresources/Army%20OneSource/Media/PDFs/Family%20Programs%20and%20Services/iWatch%20Program/AT_Level_1_Training.pdf There are many hospitals in the U.S. that already have armed security or police officers. Some of the really large hospital complexes even have their own police departments. I actually saw this article a few months ago, this guy picked the wrong time to go into that hospital. While these officers weren't permenatly assigned to guard the hospital they happened to be there at the right time. http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/7398466-Video-Parole-agent-shoots-gunman-3-times-in-hospital-standoff/

Those are only four cases, out of thousands. I have done the research and I know how many people have been found innocent on death row and the number is very small. And like I said before, all those cases you just listed were cases that were at least 20 years old and before we had as much forensic technology as we have now.

I would be really surprised if you found a murder conviction from the past 20 years that was made based on witness testimony alone. Do you know how hard it is to get a murder conviction based solely on witness testimony? I think you need to do a little more research into that topic because most cases that go through our court systems do have physical evidence in them. You bring up a valid point though; it is true that someone could conspire with other people to testify against someone but how often does that happen? And more importantly how often has that happened in a murder conviction? I would be willing to bet the numbers are really low just like how I mentioned in a previous post that the amount of people on death row that were actually found innocent is only 4%. Now just like with that study there is no 100% guaranteed way of knowing the actual number but seeing how so few cases of that have come up I am willing to bet it doesn't happen very often.

I was responding because you still seem to want to take little jabs at me which is pretty childish by the way. But its ok, I understand you are just posting stuff to try and get reactions. Don't feel obligated to reply, if you want to go back to having a polite conversation about the topic then let me know. Until then, have a good night.

Yeah I didn't realize it was kindergarten either, but I guess that is what happens when you start getting frustrated, you resort to taking jabs at people for no reason. Not sure what the point of the post is though, if you want to respond to it later than just post a reply later. Whatever does it for you though.

That may be true and there have been cases in the U.S. where murderers have turned their life around after they spent time in prison however I do not think it is fair. Where is their victim's second chance? Their victim doesn't get a second shot to continue on with their life so why should the person who took it get one? That is just my view on the subject, obviously there is no right answer on the death penalty because people see things differently. I am just basing my opinion off my experiences in the real world and the research I have done on the topic. There are valid points out there against the death penalty (such as executing an innocent person) and I acknowledge and respect those points however I feel the overwhelming amount of points for the death penalty outweigh the cons. Where did I say you had to accept my opinion? I am simply responding to what you said, no where in any of my posts did I say you had to change your opinion. If you don't want to accept my opinion then don't, it won't hurt my feelings and I won't think any less of you. Not sure why you don't have any respect for me (or didn't from the start) but that just goes to show that you probably didn't have as open of a mind as you say you did. In my opinion (DISCLAIMER: You do not have to accept my opinion) you are just upset that I am bringing up points that you can't find a response to. The whole point of a debate is that one person says what they want to say then the next person has what is called a rebuttal (aka tries to counter what that person says). I am not shooting down your opinion, I am shooting down the points that you are using to back up your opinion with points of my own, that is how a debate works. The reason I think you are trolling is because your past few responses have just been to state what you think and then italicize the word that is opposite of what I said. I would say that how often a crime occurs does not indicate if that is a serious crime or not and I would back it up with facts then you would just respond with the same sentence but just say the opposite of what I said and italicize "does" then not provide any background as to why it does. Which by the way you contradicted yourself, you used an example where bank robberies happen often in South Africa and how they don't see it as serious of a crime as we do in the U.S. and now you are saying that if a police officer was killed every hour in the U.S. that it would be a serious issue. So first you are saying that crimes that happen a lot are not seen as serious because they happen frequently but now you are saying that if another crime was committed every hour it would be serious. If anyone here has misinterpreted something then I think it is you because my original opinion was that people who commit serious crimes (and then I gave examples of serious crimes) should be sentenced to death. Then you come in and start talking about how any crime could be serious depending on the circumstances when I clearly already listed crimes that I said were serious. It isn't like I said "I think the death sentence should be for serious crimes" and then left it open ended, I listed specific crimes. But I see you have resorted to name calling so I can already tell this is no longer a real debate. I'll put in one last disclaimer so that there is no confusion: No one is forced to accept these opinions, they are just that, opinions.

Is this something you are assuming or do you have statistical evidence to back up your claims? Because I just did a little bit of research and found a study suggests that approximately 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. Now, I understand that there is no way of really knowing what the actual number of people is but I have found very few cases (especially from recent years) where people were wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Most of these cases come from 30+ years ago when our forensic technology wasn't as great. There is always a chance that an innocent person could be convicted, but I feel that if they have been through a trial and then multiple appeals and each time they are still found guilty then they are more than likely guilty. Rehab in the U.S. is a joke. I would fully support rehab for certain criminals if our government actually put the right funding into it and did it the right way. Right now the rehab programs we do have are underfunded and are basically pointless. Many of the people who go through it just do it to get their sentence reduced and few of them are actually serious about changing their ways. I know of several countries that have rehab programs for certain offenders and it has worked well, but so far I have not seen it done the correct way in the U.S. and even if it was I don't think murderers should try to be rehabilitated. If they knew what they were doing when they committed the crime then they should be sentenced to death, the person they killed doesn't get to live the rest of their life so neither should they. I know most people see that as a harsh response but I have seen these people and dealt with them and nothing else in this world disgusts me more than them, they act like animals and don't care about anyone except themselves.

They committed a heinous crime so the penalty should be severe. Nowhere in this thread did I try to make execution sound nice, it isn't a pleasant subject. Executing someone is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly, but I feel that if you committed such a severe crime then you should be put to death. The video that someone posted earlier gives an excellent example. When a dog attacks someone and injures them the dog usually gets put down, some dogs get put down just because no one wants to adopt them even if they haven't done anything wrong. So what is the difference between putting down a vicious dog and a vicious person? Personally, I don't see a difference. As a matter of fact, putting down a vicious person makes more sense because at least they knew what they were doing (except in certain cases), a dog does not completely understand what it is doing, it is just doing what it's instincts told it to do.

Either you are just trying to be a troll or you have the most screwed up view of the world. Police officers being killed, regardless of how often is a serious issue. Not sure what world you live in but most people you talk to that know what they are talking about would say that it is, especially considering line of duty deaths keep rising each year. 15 years imprisonment is a harsh sentence, please find me one reasonable person who says "oh 15 years in prison is nothing".

How often a crime is committed is not an indication of how serious it is. In South Africa the minimum mandatory sentence for robbery is 15 years imprisonment for a first time offender. So if robberies are occurring as often as you say they are in South Africa and if they don't see it as serious of a crime like you say then why do they have such a harsh punishment for it? That just goes to show that they do take that crime very seriously because I doubt any country would hand out such a harsh sentence for a crime they didn't see as very serious. Maybe it lessens the deterrent factor, maybe it doesn't. In my opinion I couldn't give two shits if it does or doesn't, there will always be people who commit a crime regardless of the punishment. I feel that those people should no longer be able to live the rest of their life because their victim cannot; even if they are still alive they have to deal with the traumatic experience they went through.

Using that logic means that every crime is a serious crime. You are basically playing the "what if" game. What if the shoplifter shoots a loss prevention officer on the way out of the store? What if the shoplifter pushes someone to the ground causing them to crack their skull open? What if the shoplifter trips and lands on the knife in his pocket? We can what if a scenario all day long and come up with thousands of outcomes. This is basically side tracked from the original point. If you commit a serious crime (and not the BS definition of serious) as I had originally outlined (and I'll say it again because people seem to be ignoring it, murder, rape, child molestation) then the death penalty should be a very serious option. You are completely missing my point, any crime has the potential to become serious but until it does you cannot call it a serious crime. Even then, when someone does kill someone because they were speeding they are not getting thrown in prison because they were speeding, they are getting thrown in prison because they killed someone. If speeding were their only charge then they would just be getting a ticket. You just made my point. It varies from person to person on what they would do so you can't say that just because you would do something that is what everyone else would do. Just because you want to fight the police doesn't mean that everyone else that commits that crime wants to fight the police because, like you said, it varies from person to person.

Pretty sure shoplifting is not a serious crime. Also it isn't based on someone's opinion of what a serious crime is; it is based on what has already been established by our justice system and society deems as a serious crime (i.e. murder, rape, etc). And as I stated in my last post assuming what someone will do just because that is what you would do isn't really a valid argument because they are not you. There are plenty of people who have committed some of the most horrendous crimes and gave up peacefully, meanwhile someone else will run from the police just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

Some of my favorite TV shows are: The Office Alaska State Troopers The Daily Show The Colbert Report South Park Family Guy I also have a love hate relationship with COPS, it is fun to watch all the exciting things that happen in law enforcement but at the same time I hate that TV show with a passion because it really fucks up people's ideas of what police officers do and what a police officer should do because it only shows 10% of what actually goes on in a police officers daily job. Not to mention I have to listen to people say "well in COPS they did it this way" anytime I tell someone something and it instantly makes people think they know stuff about the law. Favorite Movies: Inglorious Bastards Office Space Super Troopers Gladiator The Departed Argo Rush 42

That is a very extreme exaggeration. We are talking about serious crimes here, not simple assaults. The crimes that people should be sentenced to death for are crimes where they have already shown no regard for human life. Besides, that logic isn't exactly true. There have been plenty of murderers who just gave up, they did not care that they were going to be caught even if it meant the death penalty. I don't think expanding the death penalty would have a serious effect on how reckless criminals are. Considering how reckless some people are to evade a simple traffic ticket I would imagine there would be little to no increase on recklessness from murderers and rapist.

Regardless of whether or not he was a friend a police officer should never give up his weapon, that is a HUGE officer safety violation and, at least in every agency I've seen, against GO and SOP. I know if I ever saw one of my buddies on the ground fighting with a suspect the last thing I would do is run up and tell them I'm going to take their weapon, not to mention I don't think any of them would let me disarm them.

How did you use your friend's weapon? You took a weapon from an on duty police officer and chased down an armed suspect? I would strongly advise you not to disarm any police officer when they are dealing with someone, even if the suspect is getting away.

I fully support the death penalty and think it should be expanded on. It should apply to serious crimes such like murder, rape, child molestation, etc. And none of this continuous appeals that keep you on death row for 30 years either, you should get one maybe two chances for an appeal and if you are still found guilty after spending 5-10 years on death row then they should just get it done with. I understand that people are worried about executing an innocent person but considering how advanced forensic science has come I find it hard to believe we are locking up that many innocent people. At the very least these people should get a life sentence without the possibility of parole. I can't stand murderers (people who have taken the life of another human being) get a 20 year sentence then get out on parole 5 years later, that is a bunch of horse shit. You just ended somebody's life, why should you be allowed to continue on with yours? And the people who say it isn't a deterrent, that is because our justice system is weak and rarely hands down harsh punishments. Even if we did start sentencing people to death more and it didn't reduce crime I wouldn't give a shit. Mr. Buckley put it pretty well, if the murderer is dead than at least it deters one person from murdering someone because that is a guarantee that they won't hurt someone again.

If the officer looks like he needs help or asks for help then I would without hesitation. For those of you saying that you have a concealed carry permit I would be extremely cautious on how you use that around law enforcement. Officers do not know that you have a concealed carry permit and do not know who you are so if they see you running around with a gun you could very easily get shot, it has happened before and it happens even to officers who are off duty that are trying to assist other officers. The most important thing to remember is to use extreme caution when trying to assist an officer. Keep in mind that as you are approaching they do not know who you are or what your intentions are. Also remember that law enforcement strongly discourages people from getting involved in situations that are extremely dangerous such as vehicle pursuits, armed robberies, etc. What Cbeck133 said is also very true, don't try to do something if you are unsure of what you are doing or not trained because that could end up causing more harm than good.

Its nearly impossible to tell you why when I don't know anything about your agency or, more importantly, the call details. All the times that I have been on missing person calls with multiple units was because the person was usually pretty young and there was a natural hazard in the area (such as a lake) where the child could have possibly wandered into. In my sheriff's office if the person was under the age of 13 (Signal 8 under 13) then the call was automatically bumped to a priority 1 call and several units would respond and in some cases fire rescue would respond with us. Like I said, I don't know the call details or anything about your local agency or your area so there could be lots of reasons for why the dispatched what they did. Also, UTVs are necessarily just for off-road terrain. UTVs can be very useful and searching areas where it isn't practical to drive a patrol car or just transporting people or equipment around.

Yes, like I said based on the information we have on the incident (which is very little) I would have probably done something different, however, we have no idea what was really going on at the scene therefor no one can really say what they would have done. And the fact that she is a woman doesn't mean she isn't capable of causing serious injury to others. I have seen some of the most unlikely people change in a split second and do things I didn't think they were capable of so while it might dictate how you talk to someone or handle them you should never let your guard down or underestimate someone. As far as I know she had not been frisked for weapons yet so she very well could have had a gun or knife on her that she was planning to use.

Now imagine that same equipment in a Chevy Impala. I spent about 2 years riding around in one of those cars and I am convinced they are the worst patrol cars to ever hit the streets. Shitty handling, shitty reliability, really cramped after you put all the police equipment and cage in it, couldn't keep up with any medium performance sedan. Do I need to go on? Every time our Impala broke down we got to take it to the sheriff's office garage and trade it out for a spare car which, for awhile, was mostly 2003-2005 crown vics which were beasts. I actually got really excited every time our patrol car broke down because that meant we got to spend the next couple weeks in a crown vic, lol.

It may not have been the way I would have handled the situation but like many of the videos of police out there it only shows what happened as the incident was happening, not everything leading up to the incident. According to the news article an officer was trying to physically restrain her prior to tasing her. She broke free from him and continued to walk towards the other officers as they were trying to make an arrest on a different subject. Anyone in law enforcement should be familiar with the use of force matrix and knows that law enforcement is technically supposed to stay one level above the suspect's resistance level. The suspect was at a passive physical level (level 3) and possibly moving into an active physical resistance level (level 4) in which case the next level above that for law enforcement is the use of incapacitating control (level 5) such as the taser. The officer has already attempted to use physical control (level 3) and that had failed. He could continue to attempt to use physical control tactics but those had already proved ineffective once and with the suspect getting closer and closer to the other officers who were already involved with two other subjects there was not much time or space for screwing up the second chance. By the book and according to the use of force matrix published by the FDLE and taught in police academies across Florida (and most other states) this was an appropriate use of force.

The first story immediate made me question the validity of the stories. I have been on hundreds of calls for people thinking someone is in their house or creeping around outside their house and not once did we ever have more than two units on those calls, much less an entire SWAT team. Usually it would just be us and maybe one other unit to go check it out depending on the circumstances. Maybe they should remove the word "true" from the title, some of them were creepy nonetheless.

Yep, unfortunately that is just the way it is. Not sure why people try to be something they are not. I just hope they know that pretending to be something they aren't isn't going to impress anyone and will probably have a negative impact on the way people see them.

I actually just got back from Graf today, had a nice little training exercise out there. Got to shoot lots of guns and blow shit up and got paid extra money to do so.