A Message To My Fellow Police Officers

((((((((((((((((hugs))))))))))))))))))))

Stay safe sweetie

But really the death toll of American law enforcement officers has been going on too long and as sad as these deaths are I am glad you are all talking about it

Here are the deaths for 2015

Line of Duty Deaths: 130
9/11 related illness: 8
Accidental: 2
Aircraft accident: 1
Assault: 3
Automobile accident: 27
Bomb: 6
Drowned: 1
Duty related illness: 2
Fall: 1
Gunfire: 39
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 17
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 4
Vehicle pursuit: 5
Vehicular assault: 8
Weather/Natural disaster: 1
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2015
39 by gun - that is nearly one per week

But please everyone here - take time to read that link I posted it has some serious issues worth discussing

 

Well if what you say is true then why the hell would you keep fighting them in the street? I'd think it would be smarter not to do that.

 

Yes. Someone has to speak out for those who have been unjustly silenced. (The "GOOD" cops would be the best ones for that task.)

 

Dude ...

Nobody goes to prison for shooting anybody if they did what they did in legitimate and reasonable self-defense, whether they are cops or private citizens. Period. End of story.

Police officers have absolutely no "qualified immunity" from the crimes of Assault, Murder, or any other crimes.

 

You are obviously ignorant of the law.

Civilians are covered by a legal standard that is known as "disparity of force" which says you may not use disproportional force even in self defense. If it is found you did use disproportional force such as shooting and unarmed person you are guilty of criminal and civil offences.

This standard does not apply to LEO because an act of gross negligence is not considered criminal in the case of police although it is for the general public. In addition, qualified immunity prevents the civil prosecution of police unless premeditation can be proven.

In addition to all this you have a incestuous relationship between the departments within the police department which investigate themselves, and an incestuous relationship between the police and the district attorney which prosecutes crimes. The fact that LEO are trained to lie, and a culture which encourages perjury to defend brother officers makes prosecution almost impossible unless there is undeniable proof such as video of the offense.

In other words the system is corrupt and cops get away with murder all the time not to mention assault, rape, extortion, robbery, and every other crime on the books.

Here is a video of the cops gunning down and unarmed man. You or I would be prosecuted for doing this but the LEO will not be charged despite the fact they basically murdered an unarmed man.....

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-shoot-unarmed-teen-dylan-noble/

 

Now you're talking about a different issue that requires different data to look at.

You were claiming that people were in danger when they interact with police, that is false. Flip it around and you must analyze different data to come to a conclusion. In this new scenario, the vast increase of police officers deaths and attacks on officers in general (when compared to years past) is most likely statistically significant (Pretty sure nobody has looked at this yet).

 

Hardly.

This is commonly referred to in our law as "reasonableness". "Reasonableness" requires that one looks at all the specific circumstances of the incident. As an example, if a person pulls a knife on a police officer who is standing 50 feet away from the suspect, the officer may draw his gun, but he may not shoot because, although a threat is being made, the threat to the officer is not imminent enough because of the distance between him and the suspect. If, on the other hand, the knive-wielding suspect closes distance, and keeps closing distance, there comes a point where the threat does become imminent and the officer must shoot to keep that deadly weapon from being used against him. On the other hand, if the suspect draws a gun at 50 feet, that changes things because a bullet can cover 50 feet in an instant, so the threat is imminent immediately. On the other hand if someone spits on an officer, and, in his rage, he shoots the suspect, this is neither reasonable or legal. It is patently illegal. That would be a crime committed by the officer. And another thing ... some disparity of force is perfectly reasonable. For example, if an officer is making a perfectly legal arrest, and the suspect resists the arrest (unarmed), but that resistance is not life-threatening to the officer, the officer may use greater force than the suspect is using, but they may not use lethal force. They may use enough force to overcome the suspect's resistance to arrest. This might mean taking him to the ground, wrist and shoulder locks, striking, or the use of a taser, baton, or pepper spray. But whatever greater force is used must be reasonable, and the use of force must end as soon as the suspect's resistance ends. Now, on the other hand, let's say an ordinary civilian woman walks out to a parking lot after shopping, and, as she unlocks her car, a full-grown man who is bigger and stronger approaches and says, "Get in", implying that he is going to kidnap her and whatever else he has in mind, she could draw a gun and shoot him dead right there. He wouldn't even have to show a weapon. His "weapon" is his physical strength versus her lesser strength. And for her to shoot him dead immediately would be reasonable.

Three examples from my personal experience:

1) Kinda bizarre, but an 11-12 year old boy threatened to stab me with a screw driver one time. He was completely serious, and he was holding it, right arm cocked and ready to stab. I was the only officer present. I knew I was a lot stronger than he was. I distracted him with my right hand, and, when I saw his eyes follow my right hand, I grabbed his right wrist with my left. I turned his wrist into itself causing enough pain to make him drop it. Then he tried to resist being handcuffed, but I used a superior amount of physical strength to overcome his lesser physical strength. This was not an equal fight, but it was reasonable. The "disparity" or "unequalness" of force was reasonable.

2) A young adult male pulled out a machete, cocked it above his head, and said to me, "I'm going to kill you." Distance was 4-5 yards. (Domestic disturbance) I drew my pistol. If he were to have stepped forward I would have shot as many rounds as I possibly could, as fast as I could, until he was down. This would have been reasonable. He surrendered.

3) A good friend of mine at the department had a full-grown man with a large kitchen knife close distance on him from maybe 20 yards away. At about 10 yards the man went into a full-on charge. At around 5 yards, my friend fired one shot hitting him in the chest. He tumbled to the ground, unable to continue the assault.

It just all depends on all the circumstances and what is reasonable under those particular set of circumstances. This goes for civilians and police.

This is simply untrue. For example, a civilian can be charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide for killing someone while driving under the influence. So can a police officer. Any crime requiring "gross negligence" as an element of that crime that a civilian can be charged with, so can a police officer. I challenge you to find a criminal law that has "gross negligence" or "criminal negligence" as an element of that crime that cannot be applied to police. If you can find it, be prepared to define it and prove your point. I don't think that's possible, as police officers are subject to the same criminal laws civilians are.

Lying and perjury are the kiss of death to an officer's career. Even lying about very minor things - fired. Gone. Done. Example: An officer is sent to take a report of a burglary at a home. Later the supervisor asks the officer if he knocked on some doors of neighbors in case any of them had seen anything suspicious. The officer tells the supervisor he did. He says he spoke with several next door neighbors, and none of them saw anything. The next day the supervisor stops in at those neighbors' houses, and no one spoke to the officer about anything. The supervisor confronts the officer, and he admits he lied. He says he didn't think it would do any good, and he was busy and wanted to get off shift on time, so he lied about it.

Gone. Fired for dishonesty. This was my world for 32 years.

Not all cops should be cops. Not all are honest. Not all are brave and honorable. Some commit crimes.

I've seen the bad ones get drummed out of the profession, and some prosecuted, for decades.

You paint with a broad brush, though. You are not balanced in your opinion. You have got some gigantic chip on your shoulder for whatever reasons you do.

There are two sides to every story, friend, but there are never two sides if your mind is closed up tight. Truth right there.

My two cents ....

 

We, non criminals, need to show more support. Burn a blue lightbulb on your porch to show that support to passing officers. Maybe drop a thank you card in to the nearest office. Tie a blue ribbon on your mailbox. All these things and more let LEO know you have THEIR backs. Tomorrow, I plan to buy a blue lighbulb for my own front porch. AND paint my mailbox BLUE.

 

Bowerbird posted stats that said 37 (+2 accidental) officer fatalities by firearm in 2015. Considering the number of police interactions with people, that does seem like a very very small percentage.

Not enough to worry about?

 

You can say that with any profession. There have been government workers caught doing illegal activities. In my profession, there have been CPA's and tax attorneys convicted of tax fraud and identity theft. There was recently several soldiers, one of whom was named NCO of the year, arrested for illicit drug distribution, among other things. And the list goes on.

Are there bad police officers? Yes. Are there many? No. But unlike government workers or private citizens, there is little accountability among police officers that those who did do bad until it was too late such as two Dallas police narcotics detectives who planted evidence on potential suspects (that happened in the middle 2000's). What BLM is trying to do, and I emphasize trying here, is to state that police officers should be held accountable for their actions. This means independent review of officer involved shootings. 99% of the time, the officer will be cleared. The remaining 1% is where there is a question of use.

 

Well, I don't know how 37 compares to other years. I'd guess that the number 37 isn't drastically different than other years and thus by itself, isn't much to worry about.

As far as the recent shootings, it is a drastic increase in the rate of officer deaths and it's crystal clear that there is a reason for it, it's not just a spike that can't be explained.

 

of course our perspective would be different. If we were cops we'd have to protect the dirty cops too or stay silent about that extra punch they gave some punk kid that lipped off, or the aggressive manner in which they talk to people. I've seen cops. I've seen videos of cops unfiltered. All of those cops should have been fired for escalating situations, protect and serve? You don't talk to people you're supposed to protect that way. You don't yell at me because you have a badge and I don't need to do whatever you say unless I am being arrested. Being a cop doesn't mean you get to do or say whatever you want.

 

Cops see the same drug dealers that we the people do. Don't act like they are better than us just because they have a badge.

 

OK Seth Bullock (who was Canadian btw), what about when a cop drives up to a kid with a toy gun and shoots him dead without ever announcing they are cops and does not tell him to drop the weapon? It doesn't even matter if the cops didn't know it was a toy, they didn't even give him a chance. They just murdered him right there from 0 to 100. Oh yeah they didn't get punished either. And cops from all over the country supported them. Most cops are bad people

 

There is some truth in this. However, there is an infiltration into law enforcement that is like a cancer. It is called "department of homeland security", and only state citizens can deal with it with their lawful and peaceful revolution, which enforces the constitution, the same one LEO's take an oath to uphold. The same constitution named in the oath soldiers take. The same constitution named in the oath congress, judges and the president takes.

But the masses need to use their right to alter or abolish, and that requires agreement, but free speech is what serves the purpose of sharing the information agreements are made upon. The purpose of free speech is abridged.

Meaning states citizens have to apply themselves as never before in this modern world and share prime constitutional intent related to the right to alter or abolish and the right that makes it possible.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

 

Here's an article showing that the number of police shootings are going down every year, despite the number of officers increasing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297

My point, however, is that if you look at the number of police killing people and argue that statistically, you have nothing to fear, then the same goes for police officers. Sure, some get shot, but statistically it's nothing to worry about.

If there is a spike for 2016 (and I'm sure there will be), it's because people are sick and tired of them.

 

Than it's you who has a self esteem problem. They are not out there to be our friends and while you perceive "better than us", I perceive someone upholding the law. I prefer no contact with them myself. Does that mean that I think I am better than them? No, it means contact with them "could mean" I've broken the law. If I don't believe that I did, the sensible thing is to fight it out in court. Trying to fight it out in the street is a sure loser. I also appreciate that if I run into trouble there is someone to call.

It's all in how you view it.

 

Cops are also well known to be alcoholics or pain killer abusers. You got a bunch of angry, drug alcohol addicted loose cannons on the streets. No wonder cops escalate tensions. They can't control themselves.

 

Get back to me when you can prove that allegation.

 

And this really is the point I'm making. What are the people sick of? The data shows that you're in virtually no danger when you're around a police officer especially if you don't resist. So again, what were the people sick of?

Why do they think police officers are out of control when the facts say that's not the case at all? Pretty simple, the media blows it out of proportion to further push their agenda.

 

NOTHING you're saying is true. I've posted the data, cops pose virtually no danger to those they come in contact with. LOOK IT UP!!!! The media blows things out of proportion and makes people think police officers are out of control.

How about you only post again when you can show evidence that ANYTHING you're claiming is true. And before you screw this up, an example or two or ten proves NOTHING.

 

This is from Monday,

http://wsvn.com/news/local/video-shows-moments-before-north-miami-police-shot-unarmed-man/

He did everything right and still got shot.

 

Damn right.

No, you don't have to. I didn't. All it takes is courage. If you're a coward and weak, then you don't do anything about bad cops. Are you a coward? Are you weak?

Physical force is to counter physical force. My fellow officers and I never used physical force against anyone for "lipping off". The men and women I worked with just took the verbal crap, and we learned to ignore it.

Sometimes it's necessary. But it's just a tool in the tool box. I remember as a young officer watching an older police officer submit two outlaw bikers using only his voice and expression. They were looking for a fight and he submitted them with no force. Just voice and expression.

You go into that family beef, protect the vulnerable, and apply the law. You go into that packed seedy bar at 1:30 a.m. and break up the fight and make arrests. You figure out how to arrest two armed prison escapees who have vowed to kill any cops that try to stop them. You rescue an ex-wife from an ex-husband who is armed with an AR-15 and who shot the ex-wife's boyfriend in the process of kidnapping her. You kick in a door when you hear someone getting beaten on the other side of the door. You decide what to do when, in the middle of the night, a mother decides to report that her boyfriend has been sexually abusing her two daughters, ages 12 and 9. You stop a man who is fleeing the scene of the murder he just committed with a .357. When a neighbor says they heard a gunshot in the next door house, you go find out what happened. When an armed robbery happens, and the suspect vehicle drives past you minutes later, you do something about it. You get shot at and have bullets hit a wall next to you. You go to the police academy with another young officer, and you work with him, and you deal with his death when he is killed by a suspect at a domestic disturbance he responded to. I've done all of this.

Watching videos is not the same as you personally dealing with all this and much more, every ... single .... day. There is no one else to call. You don't refer this to someone else. There is no other answer. You are the answer.

Watching TV and videos is nothing like real life where you actually have to do stuff.

My words will fall on deaf ears. It's not just that you don't want to understand; it's that there is no way you can understand. This is why I usually never bring it up. You can't do the job, you're not cut out for it, you never will do the job, and you will never experience it on a personal level. That's not a slam on you. I'm sure you do something else very well. It's just the way it is. I probably shouldn't have wasted my time with this response, but I have now, and I can't have the time back, so here ya go.

 

Nobody believes you when you say "never". That shows you're lying right there because ai (*)(*)(*)(*)ing guarantee you at the very least one of the officers you worked with had went over the line.

 

Short answer: I know the case you're talking about.

Terrible tactical response. Terrible. It was my very first thought when this first hit the news and I saw the video. A "perfect storm" arose out of it. Terrible tactics, a big kid, a real looking toy, and he started grabbing it. Very avoidable if the officers had used better tactics.

The truth is, the LE community did not support their tactics, and they instantly knew their tactics were awful. These awful tactics basically created the crisis.

The problem is, terrible tactics are not against the law per se. You don't imprison people because they didn't do their job well. The only "support" these two received was sort of a reluctant support because their awful tactics created the crisis, and once the crisis was upon them - the appearance of a suspect pulling a gun on them - they responded with gunfire, and police know that when a suspect pulls a gun on you, you have no choice. But we in LE all know that there is no defense for the tactics - actually, the lack of tactics - that were used that created the crisis.

Most cops are not people. They are human beings like everyone else doing a very difficult job.