l3ubba

Fair point. I just think two years to simply become a police officer (then a minimum of another 2 years if you want a college degree) is too long. If that much training is invested into officers they are going to want better pay because who wants to spend two years training for a job you aren't even guaranteed only to come out and make $25k a year? I can't think of very many professions that require 2+ years of school/training that have such low starting salaries (school teachers and social workers are the only ones that come to mind).

That couldn't be further from the truth. Every officer, regardless if they are some small town officer or working for a large state agency should know case law because once you are up on the stand and a defense attorney is asking you to explain Carroll Doctrine or a Terry Stop and you can't explain it you just lost all credibility. Case law is extremely important to every law enforcement officer because it dictates how they can do their job. My academy was 6 months long (so about 26 weeks). Is that long enough to be proficient at the job? In my opinion, no. However most agencies have a FTO phase where you are out on the street with a Field Training Officer (FTO) and they show you most of the stuff the academy doesn't teach you and how to use what you learned in the academy on the street. I think a 6 month long academy is long enough, I could see extending it by maybe an extra month or two but eventually you have to get out of the classroom environment and see how to put what you are learning into use.

I have not been to Berlin yet so I don't have any experience with the police in that area. The closest I have been is Hamburg (nice city), will hopefully visit Berlin this Spring. Luckily my interactions with the polizei have been positive although I think they let me off easy since ich bin Amerikanisch und mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut.

That sounds very much like the stuff I learned in my academy. We also learn how to try and talk down someone and how to deal with people who are going through a crisis or have some kind of mental illness however we are not certified doctors so there is a limit to what we are able to do. The problem nowadays is people expect the police to be able to magically calm down someone who is mentally unstable and most police officers will do their best but they are limited in what they can do. I am an American but I live in Germany at the moment and I love how the German police handle things. In my opinion the police in that video did everything right. The police here in Stuttgart do things the same way. In situations like that where there are lots of people yelling at you and closing in on you they use numbers and force to maintain control. When new Americans come here for the first time I tell them not to test the police because here in Germany they don't hesitate to put you on your ass and take you to jail. In the US the police are under ever increasing scrutiny and that is making them hesitate more and more. They are less willing to use force not because they aren't justified but because they are worried about what the public and the media will say even if they are getting their ass handed to them.

When it came to defensive tactics our instructors didn't tell us to use certain techniques over others based on how brutal they looked. We learned every technique and were taught how and when to use it properly. As someone who is of a slightly smaller build (I'm only about 5'7") I don't really care how brutal I look when I'm trying to take someone down, I'm not going to let someone overpower me.

While it is true that some guys forget how to do certain techniques (although it is kind of hard to forget something as simple as an arm bar) punches and knee strikes are something that is taught in defensive tactics (at least the police academy I went to). Not sure what they taught you in the Air Force but I distinctly remember in my academy they taught us how to use knee strikes if someone is on the ground and not complying or if you are grappling with someone. Just because an officer throws some punches and knee strikes doesn't mean they have forgotten everything else. Sometimes the simple moves are the most effective.

Very true. Arresting a person who is resisting arrest is not a pretty thing to watch and I think that a lot of people today are heavily influenced by what they see on TV and in the movies that show police officers doing a quick arm bar and leg sweep and instantly getting the guy to comply and put handcuffs on when in reality that is very rarely the case. Police officers are normal people and don't have these secret moves that make every arrest quick and clean.

He wasn't in cuffs yet and even if he was that doesn't mean that he isn't dangerous or can't resist anymore. Unfortunately handcuffs aren't these magical bracelets that make people compliant once they are wearing them.

The guy wasn't in handcuffs yet nor was he kicked in the head. The officer was using knee strikes in order to gain compliance which is an approved technique that is taught in the police academy. If you want to sit there and taunt the police for being weak and not being able to arrest a guy then don't complain when they raise the level of force in order to make the arrest. Do they expect the police to just wrestle with the guy until they are tired and say "fuck it, we can't arrest him so we'll just let him go"?

I was watching this video and noticed how the guy filming (or someone nearby) was yelling how the police were weak when they were on the ground trying to detain him but when the officers started striking the suspect they got all upset and said that the police can't be doing that. Just goes to show how hypocritical these people are, they will talk shit about how weak the police are and how they can't take a guy into custody but once they start using force to try and make the arrest they scream police brutality. I don't really have any other comments about the video, for the most part it is a pretty standard police encounter. Guy is resisting arrest, officers use force and arrest the guy. Just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy that seems to go unnoticed (or intentionally ignored) by the media today. http://www.policeone.com/vehicle-incidents/articles/31744006-DC-police-investigating-arrest-caught-on-video/

Yep, well that scene alone really turned me off of the movie.

Yes, I agree there are lots of benefits other than financial to joining the military I just don't agree with the statement that everyone should join after high school. I was 21 when I joined the Army so I was older than most of the other junior enlisted guys that came in with me and most of the people I dislike in my unit are the kids who are right out of high school and treat it like this is high school since they don't really care about their job.

I was on a flight from Atlanta to Amsterdam and I was going through the movies they had available on my TV. Saw End of Watch and decided I would give it a try despite the fact that I usually hate police TV shows and movies. Started watching it and couldn't make it more than 15 minutes in to the scene where one of the characters gets into an argument with a guy on a call and starts taking off his uniform and wanting the guy to fight him. It just reminded me why I don't like Hollywood's portrayal of law enforcement.

Bad advice. Don't join the military just for college benefits and something to put on a resume. If you don't want to be in the military and don't think you will be able to handle the military lifestyle then I don't want to work with you. There are people I have met throughout my training and in my current unit who were there just for the money, they have no motivation to do well in the military, just enough to get by. Those are the worst people to work with. Personally I don't plan on re-enlisting after this contract just because the Army isn't what I thought it would be. Nothing is worse than going to work everyday to a job you don't enjoy, trust me I'm in that situation right now. While military experience is a big plus on a resume someone who had a 4 year degree and a decent job history still has a good chance to get hired in law enforcement. Bottom line: joining the military is a big commitment and you shouldn't join unless you are actually interested in the work and ready to do it for at least 4 years.

As someone who has been through this process before I can tell you that education and job experience are going to be the two best things for your resume. Go to school and get a degree after high school, trust me it will help you in the long run. I went to college after high school to get my B.S. but eventually decided to drop out to go to the police academy, biggest mistake of my life. I graduate the academy but had very little job experience and no degree plus I was only a year older than the minimum age requirement. I did very well in the academy, I had 3 years as a sheriff's explorer and over 2500 hours of ride along time with my S.O. and knew lots of people but that still didn't get me hired. I ended up enlisting in the Army for a couple years to help add to my resume (among other reasons) and I haven't been in school for over 4 years now. I can tell you that if you don't get your degree after high school and you decide to wait and get it later you will regret it. In most cases it is more difficult to go back to school after you have a full time job than it is to just do it right off the bat while you are young. Not to mention all the fun you will miss out on and having everything you learned in high school still fresh in your mind. Obviously it is up to you but my recommendation would be go to college after high school, then go to the academy and get hired with an agency. Right now while you are in high school you can join a police explorer post which will give you lots of good experience and maybe even a few connections with the department. This goes without saying but stay out of trouble; don't get involved in drugs or alcohol, it will make the hiring process so much easier. I have taken polygraphs where the investigators were shocked that I was passing the poly while answering no to all these drug and alcohol related questions because they had never interviewed anyone who hadn't at least done one of those things in their life. Law enforcement is getting increasingly competitive so having that degree will help you make sergeant and open up more opportunities for you such as detective work or specialty units. Some agencies are requiring a minimum of a associates degree even for entry level patrol work so having some kind of education is the best way to go.

So you are comparing the US to fascist and communist countries? I heard someone make a comment that I thought was pretty on point. Pro-gun activist don't like it when people bring up how gun control works in other countries because "that country is different and it wouldn't work in the US" but when they are talking about people restricting guns they don't hesitate to talk about countries who had their guns taken away. So which is it? Not to mention that I think the analogy is completely ludicrous and just fear mongering. The US is no where near the state of Nazi Germany, China, or the USSR. I don't want to get too off topic but I couldn't help when I saw this. So Hitler wasn't the main cause of WWII? Pretty sure the whole reason WWII started was because Hitler started annexing countries that he shouldn't have annexed and invaded Poland. I agree it might not have been the sole cause, some of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic depression Germany suffered following WWI contributed to WWII but overall, the main cause of WWII was Hitler. Back on topic...I recently saw this video from one of my favorite Youtubers that pretty well sums up my opinion on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bm5sDfaqSU

I agree. I'm not saying that police should pursue no matter what but it is getting a little ridiculous how strict some agencies are making their pursuit policies. But using your example of a stolen car, my sheriff's office would more than likely not allow you to pursue because stealing a car is not a violent felony. If I were the owner of a stolen car I wouldn't want the police to just give up because they guy ran.

Awww you beat me to it. But yes cp is right, that isn't a tank it is a SPG and like he said it isn't very useful for police work due to its limited mobility especially in built up areas. In the military those things are meant for sitting in the rear and launching 155mm artillery shells over 10 miles. I'm with everyone else, this seems very random and doesn't appear to have any kind of topic to discuss.

I don't want to discourage anybody from going after a job if they really want it, just keep in mind that in the military (regardless of MOS or specialty) they will tell you all the cool and exciting things that you will do in that job and leave out the boring parts that take up a good chunk of time. And even if you do exactly what they said you would be doing it usually isn't as fun once you get there. For the most part I do exactly what they said I would be doing in my MOS but it isn't nearly as fun or exciting as they described it. That's because the US is becoming a bunch of giant pussies. Everyone sues the cops anytime something bad happens even if the cops weren't the ones who did it. I don't agree with most of the pursuit policies a lot of agencies are adopting but I understand why they are doing it. In my opinion it just makes the police look weak. In the sheriff's office were I lived in the states you can't pursue unless the suspect committed a violent felony so if you try to pull someone over for running a red light and they decide they don't want to stop then you have to turn off your lights and do a u-turn. What kind of message does that send to the citizens who see that? Most people know the pursuit policy so they will abuse it.

Yes, and as someone who works with people who are 18, 19, 20 years old in the military I can tell you most of them are just as immature as any other American teenager. There are lots of people from Basic and AIT I would never want to go down range with.

Yes I know how things work in America, I'm American I just don't agree with it. Sure you have some people who are mature enough to handle firearms when they are 14 or 15 but personally I don't trust anyone under the age of 25 with a firearm.

Based on the maturity I have seen from most American teenagers I have seen 18 is way to young for them to be considered adults. I have met very few people under the age of 25 that actually act like responsible adults. Nobody has any reason to own a handgun below the age of 21 or 22.

Do people actually believe these conspiracy theories? I wonder what will happen when a Republican president gets elected and these shootings continue to happen. Will people still think that the conservative government is staging them or are liberals the only ones that do that? LOL! Texas has "very low crime"? Do you have any statistics to back that statement up or are you just guessing? I did a quick little search and almost all of the states that have the highest violent crime rates in the US are states that have very relaxed gun laws such as Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alaska.

Pretty sure DionPet is just an instigating little troll. What other reason would he have to post this topic? It doesn't talk about a recent case or even give any kind of opinion, it is just a very generic and vague description of what the media has been covering for almost two years now. Notice he has only posted one reply in this entire thread. I think he is just trying to get people riled up. There have been plenty of threads and discussions about this topic in the past on this forum, can't think of any other reason why someone would make a random post about it now other than to stir shit up.

Can I just link every police car in California?