l3ubba

So you expect the police to just run away when they get shot at? How are they supposed to do their job if they aren't allowed to respond to getting shot at?

This kind of stuff really irritates me. "Protect and Serve so they shouldn't be arresting me and shooting people". Yeah the police are there to protect you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't defend themselves or perform the duties they were hired to perform. And the analogy you used is out of nowhere. If a cop was speeding for no reason then I would say he was wrong. I don't even know where you came up with that scenario or why you think they are even remotely the same. You are calling me the hypocrite? Really? You just said that the police officer firing blindly through a door is reckless yet the guy who sticks a pistol out a door and starts shooting isn't reckless? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? The guy had no idea who was on the other side of that door, it could have been his neighbor for all he knows and he decided to just open fire on whoever it was. The officer on the other hand, sees someone point a gun out from the door and start shooting. He doesn't know who is on the other side of that door but he does know that whoever it is behind it wants to harm him. So to clarify, guy in the house: shooting at someone who knocked on his door; police officer: returning fire at someone shooting at him. See the difference? And thanks for the smart ass meme. When there is legitimate police brutality I condemn it. This is not one of those cases. When someone says "good shoot" they are referring to the justification for the shooting, not the outcome. Anytime someone is shot it is bad regardless of the situation, nobody wants anyone to get shot. It is a "good" justification for the shooting.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of people Monday morning quarterbacking this officer. Sure we can sit back in our chairs at our computers and go over the scenario over and over and spend hours thinking about it but this officer had a split second to make a decision that could potentially end his life. Someone cracks a door open and sticks a gun out and starts shooting at me you are damn right I'm going to shoot back. "Gas guns don't sound like real guns so he should have known" - bullshit, there are real guns out there that are not as loud and there are suppressors out there that muffle gun shots. You want to talk about someone acting reckless in this situation? Try the guy who stuck a gas pistol out of a door and started firing blindly. He didn't know who was out there, he just assumed it was more people trying to harass him. The guy was responding to someone knocking on his door, the officer was responding to an actual threat. My opinion: good shoot. It is unfortunate that a 17 year old girl was injured but the blame for that lies with the guy who decided to blindly fire a gas pistol at the police.

Until you are actually out there and have experienced your plans don't really mean much (and I'm not trying to say that in an insulting way). That is besides the point though. I like how people are all about spending money on "better training" yet very few people have actually gone through an academy and completed the training themselves or have any real life experience so how do you (and I'm not singling you out specifically, just people in general) know that police need better training. I'm not saying there aren't improvements that could be made but "better training" always seems to be the public's answer to law enforcement issues. Not all shootouts happen near your vehicle but there are still plenty that do. Are you saying that since there are shootouts that happen away from the patrol car that these ballistic panels are completely useless? Again, where does your point of reference come from when you say that the money can go to "more efficient causes"? Do you know how each agency spends their money or what kind of equipment and training they have? Each agency is different and have different levels of funding and different equipment requirements. I don't understand why people are hating that Ford is offering additional options to agencies. If there is something that can help keep me safer on the street then I would want it.

I didn't say they were easier to get a hold of than 20 years ago. My point was there are many different types of weapons that officers are encountering and they should be fully prepared to counter them. Budgeting is just a matter of opinion, some agencies might find ballistic panels a better option to spend money on. Maybe some agencies already have rifles in every car with all the fanciest optics. In the end you can say "well what you should do in a certain situation is..." but when you are on the street you sometimes don't have the luxury of going with the best option. Nor can we predict everything that will happen and come up with some plan to counter it. I don't see a problem with providing officers additional protection while they are in their vehicles. It is inefficient to prepare for something? I don't understand. It is easy for you to say "it will save a few officers but not all so why bother" when you aren't the one putting your life on the line. Yes, officers know and accept the risks of their jobs but that doesn't mean they shouldn't take steps to mitigate the risks.

I read an article about the incident and it said that the officer wasn't aware the cab was getting robbed until he walked up. He initially walked up to see why the cab was sitting at a green light for so long. Luckily the robber was not paying attention to his surroundings and didn't see the officer or, like you said, we could be watching a video of an officer getting shot (although in this case the robber was found to be using a pellet gun). Overall, the potential outcomes could have been a lot worse for everyone involved.

1. There is no "current bullet proofing", very few agencies have any kind of ballistic paneling in their vehicles and the ones that do have them as aftermarket upgrades which are pretty much the same ones Ford is now offering. 2. Police forces should always be expecting to take fire from all different types of rounds. Today high powered and large caliber firearms are really easy to get a hold of. Why should we wait for another North Hollywood Shootout to happen for police forces to upgrade their vehicles. I would rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it especially if not having means potentially losing my life.

In Germany I am told that American muscle cars and pickup trucks go for a lot more money over here since the Germans aren't able to buy them from dealers. If I had known that I would have bought a random pickup truck before I moved here and sold it for a profit.

Its been a couple years since I've lived in Florida but when I lived there they had the Code 3 Mastercom B.

Got a service manual for my car (1988 Alpina B10) and a GoPro which I plan on using on my next airborne op later this month hopefully. Then I bought myself a motorcycle riding jacket for when I get my new bike.

Yes, but that isn't the case for this scenario. Whether Obama wants to say it publicly or not he knows who and where the problems are.

But what I'm saying is that we already know what the cause is and our military is (or was) fighting to do exactly what you are talking about. If Obama and Clinton decide they are too scared to use the words "radical Muslims" then let them be, the people who are actually doing the fighting and intel work know the truth and know what the cause is (for the most part). I really don't care that a couple of politicians want to dance around what words they are using, they do that all the time anyway. The problem I see is that not enough people in these Middle Eastern countries want to stand up to these insurgent and terrorist groups because if they did then groups like ISIS wouldn't be able to just sweep across Iraq virtually unopposed and Iraqi Army units wouldn't be abandoning equipment and retreating without even putting up at least a little resistance. If people don't care enough about fighting back against these groups then why should we spend all these resources trying to rebuild for them, give them all this money, and political power if they are just going to throw it all away as soon as we leave.

Ok, lets pretend that the President and the rest of the US government acknowledges that these terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. What does that accomplish? I'm all for trying to destroy these extremist (Muslim or not) that are trying to bring harm to innocent people but I don't understand what the obsession with trying to make Obama use the word "Islamic" as if that brings us a step closer to solving the problem. Our military and intelligence services are already focused mostly on the Middle East where much of this extremism is coming from, does that not prove that our government already knows where the majority of the problems are? Lets stop focusing on words and focus on actions.

Your theory is definitely plausible and I wouldn't put it past Turkey to attempt something like that however the Russians are not completely guilt free either. Russia has been increasingly testing NATO countries ever since the conflict in Ukraine and I think they are walking a very fine line. And yes, I don't like seeing people dying especially for stupid reasons but my point is in the military there is an accepted risk you take when joining.

I have no idea what the Russian Air Force plans on doing now but at least they know now that Turkey will respond to continued acts of aggression. I don't know why you keep bringing up the "other NATO countries do it too" excuse, I have already acknowledged that Russia is not the only country violating airspace but they are the ones who do it the most. The life of the pilot is irrelevant. As someone who is in the military I can attest that when it comes to military operations the life of an individual soldier (or in this case, pilot) has little meaning in the grand scheme of things, when you join the military you accept that fact. He is a combatant in a conflict, there are certain risks that are taken by deciding to join the military. And don't try to say he didn't voluntarily join; I know Russia has mandatory service but I highly doubt they would force someone to be a pilot. I'm willing to bet pilots in the Russian Air Force all volunteered to be there. You are probably right, there was no immediate threat and Turkey probably could have not shot down the aircraft and nobody would have died; however, why should any country have to put up with a foreign military repeatedly and intentionally violating their airspace? I would say this regardless what countries were involved. Russia is continuously pushing the envelope to try and see how much they can get away with and if someone doesn't check them I think they are going to keep pushing further and further. I have no doubt in my mind that Turkey is holding out on ISIS. Turkey has a very powerful military and it is no secret they aren't doing as much as they could. The reason for this is because Turkey does not like the Kurdish people and since ISIS is at war with the Kurds Turkey is seeing this as a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. Turkey doesn't like ISIS but the don't like the Kurds even more.

Why would Russia shoot down a Turkish plane? Turkey is not violating Russian airspace. I understand it is a defensive alliance, that is why I said that if Russia were to attack Turkey NATO would have to step in. They were not shot down because of Turkey's ego, Russia has had a history of violating Turkish airspace and have even had their aircraft lock onto Turkish aircraft inside Turkish airspace for several minutes. Russia knows exactly what they are doing so why should we feel sorry for them? I am sorry that a Russian pilot had to lose his life probably doing something he was told to do but Russia is just testing how much they can get away with. Like I said this isn't the first offense, how many times should the Turks let Russia knowingly violate their airspace. The Turkish air traffic controllers sent out several messages as the Russia aircraft were getting close, they had plenty of time to turn away. I already acknowledged that Russia is not the only country to violate airspace. The US has done it, Turkey has done it, pretty much every country with an air force has done it at least once. Short answer to your question: Yes, I think it is fair and justified that Turkey shot down that aircraft after giving it ample time and warnings to turn away, especially considering the numerous violations that Russia has knowingly committed in the past 2 years.

Of course, I know Russia is not the only country that violates airspace but they have been doing it increasingly more ever since the conflict in Ukraine started. While a few cases might be due to human error I think the majority of the time the pilots are directed to do that because the Russian military wants to test the NATO response. Russia wants to see how that country will react and how fast they react. I highly doubt that any of these cases are due to some kind of problem with the aircraft's navigational equipment because a lot of these aircraft (particularly the one that was shot down in Turkey) are Russia's latest fourth generation fighters and have the most advanced navigational technology available to them so it makes me hard to believe when Russia tries to pin it on errors in the navigational system.

I don't know how the hell Breitbart is and I've never heard of either of those too new sources but the both seem very biased in my opinion however, I agree with unr3al on this. Ultimately Eric Garner did this to himself, he would likely not be dead if he hadn't been resisting arrest. Should the officer have put him in a chokehold? According to NYPD policy, no; however breaking a department policy does not always equal being guilty of a crime. The officer should have some form of administrative action taken against him whether that be a suspension, being fired, etc. but I don't think he is guilty of murder. I think the only charge they might be able to pin on the officer would be some kind of involuntary manslaughter charge but I think they would have a hard time even making that stick.

If Russia declares war against Turkey or attacks Turkey somehow we will have no choice but to defend them, it falls under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Personally I doubt Russia will responded with any kind of attack because they know if they attack Turkey that all NATO countries will have no choice but to help defend Turkey. This definitely isn't the first time Russia has violated a NATO country's airspace, it happens all the time in the Baltic Sea. Google articles about Russian aircraft being intercepted by NATO aircraft in the Baltics, there are plenty of articles out there from the past 2 years and those are just the ones the media reported on. The only difference in this case is that someone actually stood up to Russia and shot down their aircraft when it violated their airspace. Russia has been violating airspace for years now (and I'm not even talking about during the Cold War) so this was bound to happen eventually.

I agree, more training and two man cars would be nice unfortunately our government (I'm talking mostly about state and local government) don't have the budget to provide that kind of funding especially when you get to the county and city governments most counties in the US are struggling to balance their budget and if they provide more funding to law enforcement they have to take away from something else whether that be fire department, school system, trash collection, etc.

Ah yes, it is funny. I enjoy talking with Germans, most of them seem worried about speaking English to an American (maybe they are worried that they will offend me if they mess up) so they tell me their English is not good but then when they speak English it is usually near perfect. I have gotten pretty good at figuring out what Germans mean when they confuse a word with something else. I had a polizei officer stop me to tell me my fog lights (nebellichter I think) were on and she was having a hard time translating the word to English so it took a few minutes for her to explain what she was trying to say.

Again I don't know how other agencies do it but in my area there wasn't really annual training like you are talking about. You have to qualify with you weapons every year and I think there are some other small qualifications that you have to do annually but not exactly training. While it would be nice to do I don't think agencies have the budget to do that especially if they have a large number of officers. I think Germans can afford to do that because they collect a larger percentage of taxes among other reasons (like not spending nearly as much of your GDP on your military like the US). I understand now. Yes, there are somethings that an officer can't do by themselves and usually if dispatch knows they are going to a call like that then they will dispatch multiple units. Unfortunately there are some cases where you just have to hold out until backup gets there or deal with it by yourself. That is one of the hazards of the job. If you have never watched Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic it is an excellent show and you can see how these troopers work by themselves with back up sometimes 8+ hours away.

Just an American making an ass out of himself in Germany and making other Americans look bad. If I remember correctly it is a law in Germany that you must identify yourself if a police officer asks even if they don't have probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I have been pulled over by the polizei on the autobahn to check my papers several times. This dude needs to learn the laws of the country he is living in and people in the US should learn about this stuff to before they go around calling the US a police state when there are countries that require a lot less to stop you. We are by no means perfect but Americans don't know how good they really have it.

I agree and I see where you are going. Ultimately it comes down to the specific scenario, the way it was worded just made it sound worse than it was. I also agree with the money issue, sure the money is out there the government just decides to spend it elsewhere and each group is going to say they are under-funded (which is pretty much true for every group) and needs it more than the next guy. And while I agree that every officer should try to better their knowledge and training even outside of what the academy and agencies provide there are some officers who really can't afford that. Some agencies don't pay that well, some officers have families they have to provide for first, there are many different reasons why officers can't do the courses on their own without sponsorship. Depends on the agency. I can speak for the agencies in my area (or the area I lived in when I lived in the US). Most agencies in the Tampa, FL area will put you through orientation which lasts about 2-4 weeks after you get hired and it is essentially a mini-academy where they go over defensive tactics, shooting, legal studies, and department policies along with some other stuff. Then after that you will enter your FTO phases where you go out on the street with an FTO and respond to calls just like a normal officer the only difference is you have another officer with you who is teaching you and ultimately grading your performance to determine if you are ready to go out on your own. Again, depending on the agency FTO usually consists of 4 phases and each phase usually lasts about 4-6 weeks as long as you are held back and progress on a normal timeline. I know lots of other agencies across the US are set up the same way. Depending on how much funding the agency has they can send officers to additional schools after they are hired on. There are schools for pretty much anything you can think of; DUI investigations, traffic crash investigations, drug identification, medical training, defensive tactics, shooting schools, sex crimes, etc. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "doing jack shit". Do you mean they can just screw around and do whatever they want or that they can get away with doing things they are supposed to? Sure, to a certain extent that is true but there are plenty of technologies that are used by departments that deter that and can track what you do even if you are alone. Lots of agencies have GPS that tracks where their units are so they can see if you are somewhere you aren't supposed to be and they can tell if you are actually responding to a call. They can pull video from any camera you have in your car or on your person.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for this sentence. Lack of control is not one of the factors for using deadly force (at least most of the time). If an officer is fighting with someone and they aren't winning they might try using a different tool or tactic such as a taser or OC spray but they won't just say "well I'm losing this fight so I guess I'll shoot him". That is not how the police are trained to deal with situations and officers who deal with a situation like that usually aren't on the job for very long. If they are losing a fight and the suspect is trying to take a weapon from their duty belt or they are at risk of going unconscious then yes, they might be justified in using deadly force but it is important to clarify that the second part of that scenario is why an officer is using deadly force not simply because they can't control a suspect. Maybe that is what you meant but the way I interpreted that sentence is that if an officer is having a hard time controlling a suspect they are just going to give up and shoot them. And as nice as it would be for officers to have a partner for a few years there is simply no budget for that in most departments.