l3ubba

I find that surprising, never heard of an agency without a panic button. I just find it irritating that every topic about law enforcement that he comments on he always has something negative to say. He always has to slip some kind of comment in that paints law enforcement in a bad light even if the topic being discussed has nothing to do with it.

Like I told Pavelow, the number of traffic related deaths would be more than gunfire related deaths if you include the "struck by vehicle" and "vehicle pursuit" categories but I don't consider those "traffic related" because they were struck intentionally. However that is just my point of view, it is fair enough if you want to include those as traffic related deaths. Police are in more danger now because of recent events. Just yesterday I read an article about a man who called 911 and told the dispatcher that police officers should watch their back because if they see an officer alone they are going to kill them. We have more and more people calling for police officers to be killed. There are protesters in the street saying "no justice, no peace" and chanting about death to police officers. Wouldn't you agree that there is a very high amount of tension between citizens and police officers right now? And with higher tension there is more danger right?

ODMP shows gunfire related deaths at 24 so far and automobile accidents at 19 plus an additional 3 for motorcycle accidents. I guess you could count the vehicle pursuits/struck by vehicle/vehicular assault categories in with that but my argument is those are deaths that were intentionally caused by a suspect and therefore are just as bad as an officer getting shot. I see no difference between a suspect who shoots and kills an officer and a suspect who hits and kills an officer.

Actually I don't know of any agency that doesn't have a panic button on their radio. Unless you are referring to the shotgun rack thing. Why do you need to say he is overreacting? Why not just say "if an officer draws his pistol he needs backup" does it matter what the reason is? I feel like this is just another one of your comments about how police are out of control today except not in so many words.

It is no different than what these people who are against the police are doing. Actually I would say what they are doing is worse, they post videos that are taken out of context or aren't relevant anymore and try to show law enforcement in a bad light. And what statistic are you looking at that says traffic crashes are the number 1 cause? That was true a couple years ago but gunfire deaths has had a big increase over the past few years and has been the number 1 cause. And I'm not sure if you have been watching the news lately but getting shot has been the greatest threat to officers now more than ever. There are more and more people calling for officers to be killed and police officers being shot has been on the rise. Normally your comments wouldn't bother me, I am all for pointing out misleading facts and propaganda films but some of what you said about statistics is wrong and I have this strange feeling that if someone from the BLM movement posted a video that had a bunch of misleading statistics and snippets taken out of context you wouldn't be so hard on them.

They are pretty effective as long as you use them right. They have the capability of breaking bones, a metal rod smacking you in the arm or leg isn't going to feel good. They are a very brutal weapon however which is why lots of officers are hesitant to use them even if they are justified in using them because images of police hitting people with batons has always been very touchy for the public.

They aren't. They are meant to keep traffic moving, that's why when things like traffic stops and traffic crashes happen it screws up the flow of traffic. Just a hazard of the job, that is why pretty much every state has a law that says you have to either move over one lane (if possible) or slow down a certain amount below the speed limit when approaching an emergency vehicle.

1) Not sure how the LAPD does it but usually officers have the option of wearing the short sleeve or long sleeve uniform (it is usually weather dependent). I know for my sheriff's office most deputies will only wear the long sleeve if it is cold and it is worn without the tie since the tie is usually for formal occasions. Again, not sure how the LAPD does it but the hat is kind of the same way. Deputies have the option of wearing it if they want but most don't want to because it is just one more thing to get messed up when you get into a fight. 2) The use of the baton is dependent on what the suspect is doing. In general most use of force charts allow the use of a baton at the active physical or aggressive physical level (or whatever equivalent level is on the chart you look at) although this will vary depending on agency policy. And are you referring to the old school batons or the collapsible batons? Because I have seen LAPD officers carrying collapsible batons on their belts plenty of times. If you are referring to the old school ones I am willing to bet they only bring those out for large demonstrations since it isn't exactly the easiest thing to carry around on your belt. 3) I believe the standard issue for LAPD is the Glock 17 or S&W M&P. I am not familiar with LAPD policy but some agencies do allow officers to carry their personally owned firearms as their primary or secondary firearm. Usually there are restrictions on what kind of pistols they can carry and they also have to qualify with it. At my sheriff's office there were a few deputies who decided to carry their own pistols (saw one guy who carried a Beretta 92 for whatever reason) but most liked carrying the standard issue Glock 23. However, most deputies at my sheriff's office carry their personally owned carbine rifle, usually an AR15 but there were a couple who bought MP5s and one with an HK416. 4) Usually officers will stay in one area. I'm not sure how often LAPD rotates their officers but you will be assigned a sector and you patrol that area. At my sheriff's office squad bids were every six months so you could switch squads but that only determined what shift and zone you worked, once you were on that squad it was up to the squad sergeant to assign you a sector within that zone. Most sergeants let the guys pick their sectors but a few would have them on a month rotation to get the deputies experience in different areas within the zone. 5) Finances are never going to be a reason for police not to ram or PIT a vehicle. The only thing preventing police from hitting a car is department policy and environmental factors (civilian traffic, speed, road conditions, etc). Police vehicles are insured and can be fixed. If an officer damages his car multiple times and it is because of pursuits and out of their control then no, they would not get in trouble it is just part of the job. If the reason his vehicle kept on getting damaged was due to negligence then yes they could get in trouble.

Because there is oncoming traffic on the left side of the road. If you are on a two lane road are you going to cross in front of oncoming traffic to pull over to the shoulder of the wrong lane? And even if you are on a multi-lane highway with a shoulder on both sides in each direction the left shoulder is not only usually smaller but the left lane is the fast lane.

It actually isn't uncommon to be sent to a wrong address. There aren't really any details about exactly what happened but based on what is known the officers shouldn't have gone in guns blazing. It doesn't make any mention of whether or not the identified themselves or attempted to give the homeowner commands before opening fire, the former being a very important detail.

If you watch the dashcam videos of most of these incidents it is usually because the driver wasn't paying attention and/or did not slow down or move over one lane which most state laws require when approaching an emergency vehicle. Most of the time the driver is either intoxicated or distracted with something else (texting). There are some cases where people see an officer on the side of the road and intentionally hit them.

I'm not saying that the BLM movement is calling for officers to be killed. I'm saying that the way the media is reporting on police shootings is having a direct negative impact on how police officers perform their job.

That officer got incredibly lucky. He could have easily been killed but for whatever reason the suspect decided that beating him unconscious was enough, the next officer might not be so lucky. Are you saying that if that officer had shot and killed the suspect it would have been police brutality? I know an officer's job is to "serve and protect" and that there is a certain amount of risk that goes with the job but does that mean that an officer should allow people to beat him unconscious with his own weapon? How much abuse should they take before they take action?

The court could have if they wanted to. Once the suspect is convicted the judge is the one who hands down the sentence so it would depend on what the judge thought. Personally if he had lived I hope he would have received the death penalty or at the very least life without the possibility of parole.

I'm not holding a grudge, this is an internet forum nothing is personal for me. And you never admitted you were wrong, you just kept on changing what you said. I'm confused, your point is there are plenty of jobs to go around if you look hard enough but getting those jobs is the challenging part yet people who don't have jobs are just lazy and wouldn't be in the position they're in if they just got of their butts and looked for a job, the same jobs that are hard to get.

That isn't what you said earlier but whatever, go ahead and start back pedaling as quick as you can. And I'm not sure what point you just proved anyway. People are lazy for not finding job openings even if they aren't qualified for them or are unlikely to get them?

Finding a job and getting a job are the exact same thing unless you mean find a job like "oh look I found this job opening that I can't apply for" which, in that case, what good does finding a job do if you can't get the job you found? Not to mention if you want to start going down the road of finding a job vs getting a job you still said the quote below where you used the word "get" vs "find".

Well the way you have been talking about it makes it sound like it is easy. You talk as if finding a job is easy or if there aren't any jobs where you live just move to a new area as if that is any easier.

I can't speak for France as it has been several years since I have been there but I know that workers at McDonalds here in Germany have much better work conditions than workers in the US.

If you think what he said was a complete load of garbage then you have obviously never had to get a job. Don't worry, even if don't understand now you will understand when you go out into the real world and start applying to work places. You want to know one of the reasons why I am active duty military right now and not reserves or national guard? Because I kept getting shot down while applying for jobs; employers told me they wanted to see more experience on my resume. There were a few other reasons I decided to go active duty but my original plan was to go into the reserves or national guard, I never really planned on doing any time in active duty but look at where I am now.

No one is saying she should be treated differently. The FBI is conducting their investigation and they will determine if any security violations occurred.

That is the exact reason why I don't want him to get elected. We don't need someone who just does what they want because they have lots of money.

Unfortunately this is a trend in the US, not just for racism but anything someone doesn't like. If people see something they don't like they will try to find something to accuse it of. I just read a story about a sorority in Alabama that had to take down their recruitment video because they were being called racist for having too many white girls in it. The video itself didn't have anything offensive, it just showed a bunch of girls having fun and doing college stuff but apparently since all but one girl was white in the entire 5 minute video they were called racists. Is it their fault they live in a predominately white state and go to a predominantly white school? Maybe they don't have a lot of black people who apply to their sorority, I know many black people like to go to historically black colleges and historically black fraternities/sororities so maybe they just didn't get many black applicants. Something I have a big issue with is people who want everything to represent every race equally and I'm not talking in a legal sense or civil rights sense, I am talking strictly in a consumer type sense. If you are part of minority then, by nature, you are not going to be represented as much. If you go to a school where the majority of people are white then by nature the majority of the people who are part of certain organizations within that school are going to be white. Same thing goes for law enforcement. If you patrol a predominantly black neighborhood then the majority of stops you conduct will likely be on black people. Does that mean the officer is racist? No. The news often twists this aspect, they will say something like "the majority of people stopped in this neighborhood (a predominantly black neighborhood) were black". Well if the majority of people who live in that neighborhood are black then who do you expect will get stopped the most? If you looked at the last place I lived at in the states it is mostly white redneck people who are low-middle class. If you go look at the arrests page for the sheriff's office and look at the arrests you will see that most of the people arrested in my county are white people. Does this mean my sheriff's office is racist towards white people and targeting white people unfairly?

Yes I am aware of the issue you speak of but what I was saying is that none of this is new, it has been happening for awhile now. There have been people trying to sneak their way through the tunnel into the UK pretty much since the tunnel was built.

Not everyone is qualified to join the military now. All the branches are raising their standards and recruiters are becoming more and more picky especially with the huge cuts the military is facing. The military is no longer this thing you can fall back on. You have any kind of medical issues? If you do then good luck getting past MEPs. Don't meet the Army (or other respective branch) Height and Weight Standard? Not getting in. Can't pass a PT test? You'll get kicked out. Had any run-ins with the law (even minor ones)? If yes, you are either disqualified or at the very least restricted on which jobs you can get. Don't have at least a GED? Not getting in. Had a poor education and scored low on your ASVAB? Restricts what jobs you can have, if any. Not to mention that as a service member myself I want people who actually want to be here, not people who felt it was their only choice because if they don't really want to be here then how do I know they will give 100% and that I will be able to rely on them when it matters most. My point is there are lots of reasons why someone can't or shouldn't join the military so we shouldn't rely on the military to get people back on their feet.