TylerF

State Police here are full service, not just highway patrol. Call 911 here, a city cop, county deputy or trooper could respond.

Yes, because all American LEOs just look to shoot down everyone possible and see themselves as Judge Dredd. Ridiculous.

I have to lol when people talk about use of force, laws, and ramifications for use. Just like when departments or cities create "Citizen review boards" for police officers. Also, as far as I can tell, no-one here has really used a handgun, particularly under high stress. Adrenaline is a bitch. It's not like the movies. The real world is messy. I'm a member of verified LE forums. Yes, really, cops will be quitting Cali agencies if this goes through. In some cities where higher levels of force expectations have already been created by department policy, proactive policing has tanked. The same will happen in California. What's the incentive to do your job if you feel every action will possibly be used to get you in trouble? Hyperbole or not, that's how many cops feel about doing their job.

Prepare to have a mass exodus of cops from California. Stupid.

Lol. My county is 550+ square miles, ~30,000 people and some nights we have one car on. Budget lol. American LE doesn't function like European LE. Go out west and you'll may have 2-3 Deputies for thousands of square miles.

Some states Reserves go through full academies. In MI they do not, but they do not have full LEO authority, and cannot operate on their own.

Lol. Tactics. Sure.

I'm sorry you got a 10 over ticket on your birthday. But the way you write that does imply you were caught speeding. If that, and a couple possible traffic situations is the worse contact you've had with LE, is that really enough to hate not just an entire profession, but the people too? Seems rather, silly... It reads to me you just don't like cops because you hold anti-government biases, rather than actual mis-givings. I'm not going to change your mind, but I don't feel their is much substance to your convictions. "Trained liers", "bullies in uniform", "serve the politicians", "boot licker" et al are just parrotted talking points from the cop-block/PINAC crowd. Don't just retort that the "Supreme Court said..." You need to look up the public duty and special duty doctrine. It's Tort law. I'm going to break it to you, cops get fired all the time for failure to act or to preform their duties. Law Enforcement in the United States is not one giant monolithic entity, and it's an unreasonable position to paint with a broad brush.

If you look at the number of interactions Law Enforcement has with the public on a daily basis, yeah, it's a minuscule amount. I'm not going to tell you cops all are perfect, they're not. We are humans, we are not infallible. But to distrust all Law Enforcement because what you see in the news, is not a rational position. Have you ever had a bad experience with Law Enforcement personally? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think it's right to lump in all Muslims as the same either. But we are talking about a profession, not a religion. Conflating the two topics is a fallacy.

It annoys me, that with 800,000+ LEO's in this this country, that people can easily paint them as all bad from a few incidents that the media latches onto. There are tens of thousands upon thousands of interactions that occur daily between law enforcement and the general public. To say it's not seeing the whole picture is an understatement. It's completely disingenuous. Unfortunately, the media and the internet has made many people armchair quarterback experts on law enforcement. It's like when people say cops should go back to the "old-school" ways, without really understanding what "old-school" means...

Neither of us were there, so it's hard to comment on the details of the situation that occurred, and I see no-where that the back-up officer arrived and just shot the guy. That's just pure conjecture. Even the Officer who got fired in question admits: $175K is a lot for just "go-away" money, so yeah, I agree there was probably some malice in the firing. But I will also say, when you're on a probationary period, you can be let go or fired pretty much at will. I also know there are many, many agencies out there that have general orders against cowardice or failing to act. As with everything, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

We'd get jammed up if we tased someone on an elevated position. In regards to the fitness of the female officer: Adrenaline is a bitch, especially when you're wearing 10+ pounds of gear and a vest.

The media rarely tells the whole story, or it gets misrepresented. I find it silly to argue "what should of happened" using the benefit of hindsight, when none of us were there. I'm going to fall in line with the Prosecutors office, who had the time to investigate using witnesses and the people who were there, and access to evidence that none of us, or the media, has.

Less-lethal weapons should only be used in high-risk situations when lethal cover is available to the deploying officer. I've seen tasers fail just as many times as successful deployments.

You certainly must know far more details than the Prosecutors Office that investigated the case, or must of been there, because you apparently know more than what has been released to the public, too be making all these broad generalizations and to be able to discern the motives and actions of all involved.

There's rumors floating around that we will be switching over from P226's in .40 to Glock 17's sometime in the future as MSP had just made the same switch in the last year. All modern defensive handgun loads in the major calibers perform mostly identically ballistically.

Real life ain't like the movies. You shoot until the threat stops. If it takes more than one bullet, so be it. People react in all kinds of different ways when they are shot, and the physiological and psychological processes the shooter goes through must be taken in account as well. Read up on the OODA loop. I figured the officers would be no-billed.

The polygraph is no secret test. Generally, the questions asked and your answers are cross-referenced against your background check to see if you're lying. The problem is that it is an subjective test, not an objective one. It's why polygraphs are not admissible in court in the United States, as they are not considered reliable enough, as they are all up to the interpretation of the test giver. Here in MI, it is illegal for employers to mandate polygraphs for pre-employment. CBP and Border Patrol have been in the eye of the news and legislature recently because of their extremely high polygraph failure rates (Nearly 70%, compared to less than 30% for the nationwide average among other LE agencies that use polys) I can't really give you good answers as I've never taken one. However, just as in your background check, it pays to be honest. And don't be upset if you fail.

For what it's worth, Officer Safety is different from UoF. They are related, but they do not cancel each other out.

The job of Law Enforcement is to enforce the law. That is the public service they provide to the public at large. In doing so that protects the individual, but that is a secondary result of their primary mission. Anywho, claw hammer guy was quite on topic to the whole discussion of "lethal force" as far as I'm concerned.

Heh, if you want to archive my posts, be my guest. You raised questions about the incident, I gave you my overview in detail. And regards to your last sentence see: Warren v. District of Columbia

You did? You made no mention of the part bolded in the post I replied too. When you write in terms of absolutes, such as " Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force, while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to?", then pardon me for taking what you wrote at face value. FWIW, those officers were armed. They had Glocks in drop leg holsters. And they didn't retreat, they fled. Backs turned to the subject, running. Leaving their compatriot alone behind screaming and cowering behind a brick pillar. Only when the one officer came back and made the extremely dangerous and risky move of engaging the subject in one on one melee with a extendable baton did the rest come back and were able to secure the subject. They got lucky, nothing more. That could of easily ended up with an officer seriously injured or killed. Their bad tactics escalated the situation beyond where it should of gotten. They never should of been that close, they should not of used LtL without lethal cover, their complete lack of aggressiveness or proper mindset allowed the subject to control the situation once he started to advance, fleeing without cover, having visual of the subject or keeping tabs of your partners, and engaging in melee with an individual with a deadly weapon. In use of force situations, officer safety is the number one concern. If you cannot safety do your job, it's not just you and your partners at risk, but the public at large. Proper OS will also minimize the escalation of force in UoF incidents.

You act like all Law Enforcement in the United States is itching to shoot somebody. " Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force..." Really? Speaking in generalizations much? Out of the ~800,000 LEOs in the United States, and the tens of thousands of LE contacts that happen on a daily basis, that's an awfully ridiculous statement. Besides, this is a good example of a goat rope. The officers here failing to use deadly force when presented with a deadly force scenario not only puts them and their co-workers as severe risk, but the public at large as well by failing to sufficiently and quickly stop the threat. If they can't protect themselves, they cannot protect the public. Also, the actions and reactions presented by the officers show a lack of training and mindset in dealing with a deadly force situation. Not saying all UK Law Enforcement is like this, however it's a good counter to the broad claim of " while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to? "

He was an egoist, whose Deputies couldn't stand working for him, who spent more time looking good for the media than running his department.

Kansas Highway Patrol bought a run of "retro" cruisers a few years ago.