Are the Cops Acting Like Cowards, or is it Misguided Policy?

I don't know about you guys, but I find it quite insane how we aren't supposed to want to protect ourselves, you know, because the cops can save us, and yet they act like the biggest bunch of cowards you've ever seen when we actually need them.

When there is a mass shooting and people are being mowed down, the cops need to have a plan in place immediately. They claim that they are trying to protect civilians, but the reality is that they are trying to protect themselves.

So, is this a matter of stupid policy, cowardice, or both?

Is "Protect and Serve" a BS mantra?

I'd rather just have my own gun, thank you very much. I trust myself with my own defense in light of the utter incompetence displayed by our law enforcement.

 

You want them to just rush in blindly and get added to the body count? Police put themselves in harms way everyday to protect people but not by being stupid about it.

 

As long as the human element is a thing, public servants should/will continue to take the necessary steps to protect themselves while executing their own roles. Becoming an law enforcement officer or fire fighter isn't a kamikaze decree.

 

It's obvious you've never worn a badge or worked in law enforcement of any kind. You're a spit ball thrower, that's it.

 

`
`
Metaphorically speaking, many police (but not all) 'serve' themselves and 'protect' their own interests.

 

wearing a badge, is meaningless.

pathetic security guards wear badges.

park rangers wear badges.

don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

So if you could do a better job why don't you become a cop and you could bum rush in on the next attack?

Your post is ignorance. While me and you would run away, they go in.

 

I have the weapons to protect myself and family. I'll also go to the aid of someone in trouble. I am not a peace officer but I have a lot of respect for peace officers.

 

It's easy to armchair a hostile situation with people putting their lives on the line.

And as my father-in-law, who was a retired police officer, had said, "It isn't that we are afraid to die, we just don't want to die stupidly.".

Just rushing into an unknown situation puts the officers lives at risk and it puts the hostages lives at risk.

 

Dude, they are standing outside listening to people get shot, which is completely unjustified. Yes, there comes a point where they need to go in and take a chance, and that point is long before hours have elapsed.

Sure, but waiting hours and allowing dozens of people to die is BS.

Well, why don't you challenge what I'm saying and try to justify it, then? If I'm not making any sense, show me how I'm wrong.

I'm not allowed to become a police officer, as I've explained before in other posts.

Yes, I would absolutely go in if my friends were being mowed down I was packing a carbine and body armor.

Fair enough.

When people are being mowed down like pigs in a pen, the situation is already out of control. I find it hard to justify more "planning" when that kind of thing is happening. These aren't hostage situations--the shooter is committed to killing as many people as possible.

 

Cops, by law, are not required to protect anyone.

 

Then what the hell are they for? Putting people in jail for marijuana?

 

To enforce the laws. They are not superheroes.

 

Except the laws prohibiting mass homicide

 

LE rolls up and you have your heater pointed at someone, very good chance you will get shot.

 

One begets the other.

 

When hurricane Wilma hit, my wife broke her hand. I got through to 911. No one is coming until the storm has passed and for good reason, their lives would be at risk. You can only really depend on yourself anyway.

 

Cops can go in guns blazing when people are no longer allowed to sue. Guess what?? If the cops did barge in and innocent people were killed guess what the families of the ingrates would do? Sue the cops. Same is if someone in the club whipped out their own gun and shot the killer, but happened to kill a bystander as well. He might have saved countless lives but the one person he accidentally shot would be manslaughter and Liberals wouldn't see him as a hero, but a murderer. So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Anyone who acts quickly is screwed because of lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

True enough, but what does that have to do with them failing to address mass shootings in progress? I still haven't seen any good reason for the pathetic response of law enforcement in these cases.

What are you talking about?

Agreed. People first need to be allowed to protect themselves, since the police certainly aren't going to.

 

Its not a cops job to run head long into gun fire.

 

Laws are a function of providing penalties for breaking them. A cops first duty is to protect themselves.

 

Best response so far--very good point.

Well, perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed and is kind of what I was getting at. If there is some legal or policy shift that would allow for a more aggressive, punctual response to these shootings, then we need to pursue it. In these situations, the cops need the authority to go in ready to shoot, even if there is the potential for some collateral damage. Two accidental deaths are better than 20 intentional homicides.

 

It should be someone's job. If not the police, then who?

As I said before, this needs to be adjusted.

Perhaps the public simply doesn't care as much as they think.

Until these types of situations are addressed, I'd like the demands for people to be disarmed or restricted from protecting themselves to stop. Ideally, we can stop being cowards.

 

Ok, what instance are you referring to?

 

Virtually every mass shooting I am aware of in which the police show up while the shooting is in progress. How often do they actually take down a shooter in progress? The shooter usually completes the task and kills himself or runs out of ammo.