Joseph McNamara : 50 Shots

Joseph McNamara, writing in the Wall Street Journal, takes on the increasing militarization of American law enforcement:

Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on "officer safety" and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.
If Mr. McNamara is advocating Barney Fife-style, one-bullet law enforcement, I'd have to disagree. Then again, there seem to have been changes in the law enforcement mentality over the years, and I'm not sure they're all for the better. I don't fault the cops themselves for this development., and I don't think cops should have to patrol the mean streets with a six-shooter .38. It does appear, however, that there's been a real shift in culture from "peace officer" to "street soldier," and I think that at least merits discussion.

h/t : Glenn.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:49 PM

Comments

1 Arrest the Islamists and ship them to Guantanamo.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at November 30, 2006 01:08 AM

2 Mr McNamara doesn't know what he's talking about. "Older culture in which cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed"?? Are you kidding? In the "old days", it was not uncommonfor officers to fire on even fleeing criminals, whether felons or not. Now, most departments ONLY allow the use of deadly force if an officer fears for his life or for that of an innocent person. In fact, in today's climate of heavy litigation, an officer can expect to be sued and/or lose his job if he discharges his weapon in an even slightly less-than-by-the-book manner or circumstance.
"Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with HIGH CALIBER rounds...." High caliber rounds? I don't know what department he's talking about, but the department that I work for uses 9mm. I don't think there is a single planet in our solar system on which 9mm would be considered a "high caliber round". In fact, 9mm Luger used in Glocks that many departments use is the exact same round that the Germans used in their P38's and Lugers in WWII 65 years ago. "High caliber" indeed!! 9mm is woefully inadequate. Also, most of even the most backward departments around the country have been using "semi automatic pistols" since at LEAST the early 1990s, if not long before. Mr Mcnamara acts as if "semi auto pistols" are a brand spanking new cutting edge hi-tech invention, just invented after the 2003 invasion of Iraq... when in fact semi-auto is 100-year-old technology.
In short, Mr Mcnamara is completely 100% wrong. "back in the day", policing was ALL about "officer safety". 80/50/30 years ago, in most cities, if one disrespected a cop, one got beaten down and put in one's place, to put it lightly. There were no on-board vehicle cameras, microphones, ACLU lawyers etc. There were no GPS recorders that showed clearly where every single police car was at every moment of the day like there are today. There were no TV reporters who tried their best to catch police officers doing something untoward on camera. Police officers used to have vastly more lattitude and freedom to act than we do today.
Just as I love to read commentery about soldiers and warfare by people who've never served a day in their lives, I love to read articles by people who not only have never been cops, but have never bothered to understand the situation that law-enforcement faces every day.
Wolfenberry

Posted by: Wolfenberry at November 30, 2006 02:01 AM

3 one way of telling how long-time cop and police chief mcnamara is on the right track is to see how vociferously the cops dispute what he has to say. (see above). the militarization of the cops contiunues apace; swat teams are now used to break down granny's doors; and, of course, it's procedure to shoot the family dog when cops serve 'dynamic' warrants. (all in the name of "officer safety", of course.)

last 2 points:
1) the gent above seems to think mcnamara has "never been a cop". incorrect. good thing he isn't the guy in charge of typing out the address on swat warrants, huh?
2) the gent above seems to think a 9mm bullet is "woefully inadequate" for shooting citizens. maybe; maybe not...but evidently the nypd seems to agree. to get around the "too small a bullet" problem, they fired 50 (count 'em!) 50 shots at the *unarmed* guys.

i guess we should just thank god that no cops were hurt, huh?

Posted by: larry at November 30, 2006 02:38 AM

4 Cops used to be able to rely on the citizens to support them. They didn't feel like there was a bullseye painted on their backs when they hit the streets. Nowadays the us-vs-them mentality is encouraged by all the supposed experts who are more than willing to second guess the police at every opportunity. I don't fault the cops for being so clannish, no one else is watching their backs.

As for the woman who got shot in Atlanta, last I heard all the facts still weren't in.

Concerning the family dog, Rover deserves a bullet if he gets in the way. End of story there.

The cops of New York who shot off 50 rounds didn't know they were facing "unarmed" suspects. They believed otherwise. When you're in fear for your life, emptying the magazine is a real possibility.

And yeah, I think we should always thank God when no cops get hurt. They're on our side and we should show some appreciation.

For the record, I've been arrested a time or two myself. Even was involved in an incident where the police were unnecessarily brutal. But I still support the cops.

It beats calling on a liberal when there's trouble in the neighborhood.

Posted by: Subvet at November 30, 2006 03:56 AM

5 I agree with the above poster who actually like cops, who keep us safe. I was going to make some of the points that they made - 9mm considered a "high-caliber" round, cops having to wade through so much litigation after they do their job that it's not even funny, etc. The only point I haven't seen yet is the remark about the "military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances." The reason for this is situations like the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, where the police were SEVERELY out gunned by criminals who were wearing head-to-toe body armor, and equipped with AK-47s, using armor-piercing bullets, HK-91s, an automatic AR-15, with drum magazine, a Chinese AK, and a 9mm.The police had 9mm Berettas, .38 caliber revolvers, and shotguns. It wasn't until they went to a nearby gun store, and got some AR-15's, that they were able to gain the upper hand. We need to remember that the police are there to protect the population, especially the civilian population (and the actual offenders, but the innocent come first, and police can correct me if I'm wrong) and instances like the North Hollywood shootout, and people who hate the police have made an already difficult job that much harder. To address the comment of "It does appear, however, that there's been a real shift in culture from
"peace officer" to "street soldier," and I think that at least merits
discussion." - it does merit discussion - cops are continually harassed, and looked upon as people on power trips, who just want to oppress innocent people just going about their daily lives, don't get me wrong, there are bad ones out there who do want to do those things, but the vast majority are good people who want to do a good job at what is a noble profession - protecting others. What also needs to be looked at is the types of criminal who the police are facing today, these people are often high on drugs, well armed, and have no issue with killing anyone who gets in their way, so if the "peace officer" has become a "street soldier", then to a certain extent it's because the criminal has become a type of urban, guerrilla terrorist.

Posted by: Matt at November 30, 2006 04:54 AM

6 Let us consider the root cause of this horrible incident.

The police weren't chasing someone who committed murder, rape, robbery or even tax evasion.

They were trying to bust these guys for possible possession of a firearm. The claim that one of the men in this bachelor party made a comment about having a gun is the sole reason why the police attempted to stop the car and the reason that lead to the cops firing 50 rounds into the car.

There was no firerarm found. None.

This wasn't a group of gang-bangers trying to shake down a store owner. This wasn't a group of Mafioso smuggling drugs. It was a group of guys out for a bachelor party who went to a strip club to ogle naked women. I don't care if that club also has a reputation for the trade in illegal weapons. These guys weren't there to do that and I would expect that any reasonable person who spent 10 seconds watching them would see that.

The root cause here isn't cops and it isn't the victims. The root cause is the evil of outrageous bias against the legal possession of firearms.

Who is to blame for the death and destruction? Mayor Michael Bloomberg is to blame for this and his co-conspirator is Rudolph Guliani. They have many more co-conspirators running back decades. The City of New York has been waging a war on its citizens to deny them their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This debacle is a direct result of that war. If the cops hadn't been trying to bust people who MIGHT own a gun then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

It isn't the cops' fault they were there to enforce an evil and unConstitutional law.

This death is a crime committed by Michael Bloomberg and his co-conspirators the same as murders carried out by organized crime are ultimately the responsibility of the crime boss.

Posted by: GI Joe at November 30, 2006 07:38 AM

7 Where is it that cops patrol the streets? All I see drive around two in a car. I don't believe cops are trained to protect the public as much as protecting themselves.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 30, 2006 07:39 AM

8 Leaving aside the question of why this policement were shooting in the first place, I think the event highlights a common problem among police - no gun control (they can't hit what they're aiming at.) And the root cause of that problem is inadequate training, range time, and practice ammo. If you can't shoot any better than these guys (and they seem typical of police these days), you have no business carrying a gun.

Posted by: Glenmore at November 30, 2006 08:01 AM

9 The police departments in New York, Los Angeles and Miami have become third world style organized crime rackets.

Posted by: Dill Doe at November 30, 2006 08:07 AM

10 Yea, but the ones in Miami are understandable. Just flash a $100.00 bill and you get justice.

Remember the laughter, jokeing and good times the FBI, ATF, etc: were having before they attacked some religious nuts with tanks and gas at Waco? The result? Some other friggin nut blows up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Of course that was when Clinton and his freaks (old ladies, midgets and 6'3" lesbians)were in charge.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 30, 2006 08:19 AM

11 Our police have to carry more powerful weapons then before. A shotgun and a police revolver just aren't enough anymore. You can just look at the North Hollywood Shootout to realize that. Lightly armed police means dead police. Still, most police probably carry a service semi-automatic pistol, and either a shotgun or a carbine of some sort, not a fully automatic M-4 or something, in most cases I believe that is still relegated to the SWAT teams. If I was a police officer, I sure as heck know that I don't want to be outgunned by the average citizen, which means I am definitely outgunned by the average criminal.

Posted by: Duncan Avatar at November 30, 2006 08:22 AM

12 <I>cops are just jackbooted barney fifes who can't shoot, corrupt, donut-eaters, blah blah blah</I>

*snipped*

The relentless bigotry against men doing a difficult job is neverending. We call people racists when they stereotype and denigrate minorities in that fashion, or anti-semites when they do it to jews, or homophobes when they do it to gays. Tell me again why we shouldn't employ the same disdain and scorn against the intellectually-lazy smack-talkers among us who would so casually label an entire group based on a stereotype?

If reports are correct, the guys in New York drove their car into a police van and toward about five officers. I'm sorry, but directing a 5000lb bludgeon towards police officers will get you shot every single time. There are also reports that at least one man made a reference to a gun... it's not the officers' fault that turned out to be a bluff. All the facts aren't in yet, of course, but that's my preliminary take.

As for Mcnamara's comments:

His post-hoc judgement on incidents where he wasn't there is rude, and he should know better (stand up, thump chest, state in booming voice "*I* never would have shot that man"). The officers in the Diallo case didn't have Mcnamara's psychic gift of knowing why the man was running and ignoring their commands, and when he suddenely turned and reached for his pocket, then thought it was a gun. Chief Mcnamara should show all officers how to tap into those amazing clairvoyant powers of his.

Patrol car rifles ("military assault weapons"): driven by incidents like the North Hollywood shootout and various active shooter incidents, where police needed longer-range weapons. This has happened before, (Texas tower massacre) and it's a shame we have to relearn the same lessons.

Auto-pistols: these have become more popular and higher-quality in general. It's not just police, but civilian shooters, and urban street culture that have driven this (and Gaston Glock, of course).

And what's his beef with shotguns? That I don't understand at all.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 08:46 AM

13 It isn't the cops, it's the perps who have escalated. We now live in a media world of gangsta and violent video which trains up the young perps to believe that they can't be killed. Too bad for them

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 30, 2006 09:09 AM

14 The caliber issue is a red herring. McNamara should have known better than to infer that .38s would improve current policing.

But the real point is the larger picture. If 9mms aren't the problem (and they're not), something is. And that appears to be the pervasiveness of paramilitary methods against civilians - mostly nonviolent ones - based on an assumption that everything and everyone is a mortal risk to officer safety.

Posted by: biwah at November 30, 2006 09:17 AM

15 Steve:

How does that work for the people who are sitting at home when the SWAT teams busts in with concussion grenades and assault rifles? That situation (even where neither police nor resident make any serious mistakes) is death and destruction on a platter.

Posted by: biwah at November 30, 2006 09:19 AM

16 I agree, its the criminals that have been militarized, not the police. Just like in the 20s, its was the gangsters that first started using military firepower, Thomson Submachine Guns, and law enforcement that followed suit. I don't think this was the result of bad police procedure. It was the result of a policeman fearing for his life and overreacting. The guy was approaching a suspect car and he was run over. The guy thought he was going to die so he unloaded his 9mm into the car. His partners heard the shooting and then they too opened fire. Now the first cop fires his last round, hears the shooting continuing, so he reloads another magazine and keeps shooting. Now, I am not defending the guy. He let his fear get the better of him and innocent people died. But this isn't a question of overly aggressive tactics, its a question of restraint and training.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 30, 2006 09:46 AM

17 The main problem is a lack of training. Most cities don't bother to fund it that well, especially in large cities. How many decision makers in NYC are shooters? I bet none. Thus, none of them know how damn hard it is to shoot.

A cop should, imo, be putting at least 500 rounds downrange every week in whatever weapons they qualify with (and every cop should have access to an AR-15 in similar. Semi auto rifle > pump shotgun for a laundry list of reasons). 500 rounds of ammo spread over a whole department will cost a lot in ammo and weapons (you'll burn those barrels out). But I'm sure there's some BS pet project that could be cut to fund that.

Most cops just aren't trained enough on their weapons. And on their typical below what they deserve salaries they can't afford their own training (and shouldn't have to). And thus most just don't know guns. Hell, I had one compliment me on the care I use and clean my 92FS with. He was shocked that I clean my pistol after every range session and do an oil and maintenance check every two weeks regardless of if I shot. He said he hadn't cleaned his in a month.

Posted by: Spade at November 30, 2006 09:47 AM

18 From the research I did into it it looks like a good shoot. If you google around a bit you'll find that the deceased had already been arrested four times prior, was rolling in a blinged out SUV "wid dubs" and was challenging another individual to a fight just prior to being challenged by police.

What we have here is a group of people who want to be "Gangsta's". They look like "Gangstas", act like "Gangsta's" and for all intents and purposes are "Gangsta's". Drinking, fighting, acting like gangstas and attempting assault with a vehicle (while attempting to flee and evade) when challenged by Police increases your chance of being shot by a wide margin.

Do I feel bad about the shoot? Not a bit, Tu Pac would be proud of him.

The Police are well armed and they need to be, someone has to keep the peace. They aren't "over-armed" with big scary assault weapons (Ooohhh!) they just have what they need. Try raiding a crack house with the old six-shooter and see how that goes.

Posted by: blackflag at November 30, 2006 10:06 AM

19 Well I have a proposal...if the criminals and street gangs would resort to doing it the old fashioned way of bats, knives, and the occassional gun then the police can revert back to 6 shooters.
Those days are over....gangs and common thugs can be heavily armed (as seen in the bank robbery in LA quite some time ago where two robbers fired upwards of 1000 rounds and had body armor). Even then police were outgunned and had to resort to taking weapons from a gun dealer to even have the same firing power of TWO MEN!!
The only way for people to not be in a bad situation....do as the police say if you have done NOTHING WRONG!! You won't get shot that way.

Posted by: Steve at November 30, 2006 10:07 AM

20 do as the police say if you have done NOTHING WRONG

That's not bad advice, though I wouldn't ask anyone to just accept or ignore corrupt, bigoted, or unnecessarily violent policing. It's our responsibility as citizens to seek and encourage competence and accountability from our government... but (and this is an enormous caveat) you're a complete fool if you think the street is the place to fight that battle. You will lose. every. single. time.

The place to fight thug, racists, or corrupt cops is in court, where you can actually get a fair hearing, backed by appropriate legal counsel. Alternatively, if your local LE agency has an elected leader, oust him and elect a reformer.

Unfortunately, there are countless dirtbags who scream "racist!" and "police brutality!" every time they get arrested, so be prepared to have some witnesses, video, corroboration, or some kind of proof before you level that charge, because I can guarantee the judge has heard that song before.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 10:46 AM

21 No, it is the Police that have unilaterally decided to renege on the pact with the public ‘to protect and serve’ even if it places the officer at risk. In recognition of this, Police Officers enjoy extraordinary powers granted to them by the public, plus very favorable retirement and death benefits.
But over the last quarter century, the Police have decided that their safety outweighs the Public’s safety to the point that it apparently was Police Policy to deliberately kill hostages if it was perceived that a suspect posed a danger to officers. (New York, mid ninety’s). Police using No-Knock Warrants and SWAT Teams armed with explosives and Automatic rifles as SOP for arresting someone because a few pot seeds were found in their garbage. Or because they were suspect of placeing bets on football games in the Office. And when this person, or even an innocent person (because they raided the wrong address) is shocked out of sleep by the sound of crashing doors and deafened by explosions from Flash-Bangs, and not fully awake yet, leaps out of bed, the Police justify shooting them because they (A) were moving in an aggressive manner, (B) Did not obey shouted orders from multiple people, (C) posed a threat because there was a handgun later found in a locked drawer, (D) and did all this even though Police Identified Themselves.
NO S**T, Sherlock. And they find no contraction in the fact that the had deliberately deafened, blinded and Disoriented the person, before being ‘forced’ to kill them because they did not see the Police Logo on the back of the jackets of black-clad intruders, in a black room while blinded by flashlights and Flash-Bangs, Did not hear the Police identify themselves after being deliberately deafened by Flash-Bangs. And did not immediately obey shouted orders from six or more screaming people after being deliberately disoriented, deafened and shocking the nervous system by using Flash-bangs.
Then figures ‘Oops, Sorry. It don’t look so bad’ covers shooting that person for reacting EXACTILY HOW THEY PLANNED FOR HIM OR HER TO REACT!
And before you SWAT Guys start in, just think about it for a minute, and use common sense.

Posted by: Mark at November 30, 2006 10:52 AM

22 Oh, and don't forget, Police Departments have gone to Court and won making it not their responsibility to actually protect citizens. Since that is legally not their job anymore, would some police officer out there tell me exactly why I am paying your salary?
Going back to the Cato study, could an Officer tell me why, when a SWAT Team realizes that they have raided the wrong address, do they continue to search the house, sometimes for hours, all the while holding guns to the heads of the innocent occupants, despite not having a valid warrant? And no reason to suspect that the occupants did anything wrong? Sounds to me that they are hoping to find something to cover their mistake.

Posted by: Mark at November 30, 2006 11:05 AM

23 "I agree with the poster who said that most cops seem to have accuracy and fire control issues. Even if that one old lady had a gun and drugs, 90 rounds is overkill. "
This is sort of Obvious. The officers in the Atlanta case fired 50 rounds, and hit their target three times. Compare this to an enfeebled 88 year old lady with a rusty 22 pistol, who somehow managed to put five of six round on target.
For that alone, they should be fired.

Posted by: Mark at November 30, 2006 11:18 AM

24 "Unfortunately, there are countless dirtbags who scream "racist!" and "police brutality!"

Indeed, I forgot to point out that the officers involved were two blacks, two whites and an Hispanic. This is just the usual anti-police media frenzy.

Posted by: blackflag at November 30, 2006 11:25 AM

25 I think the pro-militarization of the police folks need to read..."Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" by Radley Balko, from the Cato Institute....He also works for Reason magazing and runs The Agitator blog. It bothers me that we have some folks that believe "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry." That is very dangerous thinking. In my eyes, that is as dangerous as the most vile words in the english language..."This is for the common good". McNamara is right, we do need to re-think all of this.

Posted by: RegularRon at November 30, 2006 11:35 AM

26 I see it really as depending on the police department. Our township police are very professional, have been courteous and fair in all my dealings with them. I have only seen them not be so to people who are already behaving violently. Contrasted with that are the county and state police. The ones I have experience with operate in the same area as the locals but hardly ever take their hand off the butt of their sidearm when they're not in their vehicle. They treat everyone as though they are guilty of everything up to and including serial murder even during something as simple as random seatbelt checks. Then if you go over to Warren County the cops act nice when you interact with them but they'll ticket you for going .5 mph over the speed limit if you don't have Warren County plates.

I agree with the poster who said that most cops seem to have acuracy and fire control issues. Even if that one old lady had a gun and drugs, 90 rounds is overkill. Ditto with these guys in this truck being filled with 50 rounds. There's only two options, either the cops are so bad at aiming that it takes that many rounds to hit a target, in which case they should have a LOT more training, or they are so lacking in fire control that they should be disarmed until they can get the proper training to not be a hazard to everyone within a mile radius. There are skirmishes with automatic weapons in wars that have fewer rounds fired by both sides than what you hear about in some of these cases where the police are using semi-automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns against one or two pople, so I don't buy into this whole "it's stressful so we can't judge" line of thought.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 30, 2006 11:48 AM

27 I'm generally pretty pro-cop, but many of the above comments are completely infuriating.
Yes, the cops need to have heavy armament available.
The problem is with the increasingly common OVERUSE of them.
Cops these days increasingly use MAXIMUM force as the default, regardless of who they are dealing with.
Middle-of-the-night knock-down-the-door-and-fire-grenades raids are completely foolish, even if they DIDN'T have the wrong address so often.
I have it from ex-cops I know that it is (unofficial) policy to make sure you kill if you shoot - a wounded person, perp or not, will take you to court and ruin your career while a corpse rarely results in so much as a reprimand.

@Subvet: you say that the family dog desrves to be killed if he gets in the way - many swat teams designate someone to SEEK OUT the dog and kill it automatically.

The cops HAVE become over-militarized, paranoid, and trigger-happy.
Yes, by all means, they need to get the bad guys - but they need to be a LOT more careful of those they are SUPPOSED to be protecting.

interesting related info:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ (this should really scare all of us!)
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027259.php#027259
and
http://www.theagitator.com/ in general...

Posted by: powerclam at November 30, 2006 11:53 AM

28 I've posted this elsewhere, but an underlying reason for police firing so many rounds is 'political correctness'. It's because of political correctness that police administrators insist on double action pistols with heavy triggers and multiple 'safety' devices. These are safer if dropped, but harder to shoot accurately. Here's some statistics:
-New York City Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) Glocks with 12 lb. triggers: 15% hit ratio*.
-Los
Angeles County Sheriff Department (L.A.C.S.D.) Double/Single Action
trigger, first shot double action approx. 12 lb., subsequent single
action shots approx 5 lb. trigger pull weight: 51% hit ratio*
* SPECIAL REPORT: FIREARMS, Aveni, Thomas; Law and Order, Vol. 51, No.8 August 2003
The solution is to allow police to carry single action pistols that are easier to shoot more accurately. I realize this is an issue that many will find esoteric, but to the cops involved, a sloppy Glock is almost as bad as an armed assailant.



Posted by: Frank Hilliard at November 30, 2006 12:24 PM

29 Interesting. I suppose it's my age, but I see "peace officer" as a recent development that runs counter to the traditional role of police. I never heard of a police officer being called a "peace officer" until the early 90s.


Posted by: rightwingprof at November 30, 2006 12:43 PM

30 Mark,

You should head on over the Patterico's place, or Eugene Volokh's blog. We've been discussing this to death for almost a week.

And CATO's map is pretty, but that's 20 years worth of incidents at up 40,000 warrant services a year by one estimate (current rates... there were fewer 20 years ago). In my experience, wrong-house and killed-wrong-guy incidents are extremely rare... and that's years of tactical-team experience talking.


And before you SWAT Guys start in, just think about it for a minute, and use common sense

Sure... and while we're doing that, why don't you gain some tactical experience going after armed felons and THEN tell me how evil noise-flash distraction devices are. Those devices gain the entry team critical seconds to get through the fatal funnel and overpower the subject. When they're blind, disoreinted, and shocked (your description), they have a much harder time regaining their bearings long enough to go for a weapon. This allows us to arrest them instead of shooting it out with them.

the Police have decided that their safety outweighs the Public’s safety

Umm.. no. We're not executioners... if we were, we'd just put the snipers out, let them take the suspect, and save ourselves all the trouble. Also, I'd appreciate a cite to the police department where it was their policy to deliberately kill hostages.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 01:03 PM

31 For all those that are attacking cops for raiding the wrong address, you do realize there is a oversight? a judicial process before a warrant signed?

I noticed "rubber stamping" Judges and overzealous District Attorneys escape your scorn? these are the people that make it possible for a raid to occur in the first place. If judges are not making sure the address is correct, and a District Attorney is 'prosecuting' your residence in front of a Judge, it speaks volumes about the real judicial oversight of the raid themselves when even the simplist part -- the residential address is signed incorrectly, and no one noticed that the DA's evidence doesn't actually match the house that is supposed to be raided.


Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 01:11 PM

32 A lot of good discussion here.

9mm is medium calibre for a pistol.

My local police dept. was built up by a couple ex paratroopers, and these guys are good at 'serve and protect'. Our region is swamped with meth labs, and still we can avoid the kinds of shootouts you get elsewhere. It's not like the cops here don't have guns.

I have a relaible source that tells me our highway patrol is supplied with M72 law rockets, to emergency stop vehicles at road blocks. Still you never hear of them being used up here.

Our police are part of the community. I think that is the difference.

It would explain the fascism of ATF/FBI tanks a bit better to realize those guys didn't come from Waco.

The old fashioned cops knew the people in their patrol area better.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 03:38 PM

33 well, we seem to have gotten the ol' conversational ball rolling now, huh? one thing that's guaranteed in a forum like this is a pro-copper will inevitably mention the hollywood shootout. always; every time. and in the same vein, they'll then mention that the cato map of dead citizens - killed by cop error or overzealousness - is a 20-year map; meaning that in any given year, cop error doesn't kill near as many folks as that map would seem to indicate.

can't have it both ways, guys. the hollywood shootout is prety much the only one of its kind. if there were more, you can be sure we'd be hearing about it in forums like this. what's most interesting to me is the sense that cops use that shootout as the holy grail of militarization not so much for "officer safety", but rather their fury and embarrassment at having been (for just that one time) momentarily outgunned. can't have THAT! so, to justify the ongoing upgrading of cop firearms to military-caliber weaponry, we hear about...that one (count 'em) one incident.

as for the gent who cheered the killing of the family dog: we can only hope a cop kills your kids beloved pet while serving a warrant meant for the next-door neighbor. and then jeers at the kid, and his mother, and you. which happens fairly often: look it up. all in the name of "officer safety", of course. we'll see what a hardcase you are then.

Posted by: larry at November 30, 2006 05:05 PM

34 NewGuy, we may not have years of tactical experience like you profess
to have, but by the same token you don't have the same prespective as average joe civilian. You implying we can't have an opinion on the tactics and
equipment since we haven't been in the line of fire is as stupid as
if we said you couldn't have a valid opinion because you don't have to worry
about such a raid since you hint at being on a team that does this kind
of thing.





It's perfectly understandable to do a paramilitary style raid on
someone whose a known crack dealer with multi-conviction and a history
of violence. I don't get why it would be okay to assault a house of
someone who has no record with little or no investigation beforehand on
the word of an informant out to save their own rear, because trace
ammounts of an illicit substance were found in a publicly assessable
bin (otherwise the cops wouldn't have legally been able to search it
without a warrant), or an undercover caught them betting on sports in the office (a very common and usually non-violent thing to do). This is where
davec's proposal of better judicial and prosecutorial oversight would
help the matter tremendously.


These wrong address or invalid cause raids may be an extreme minority of the
overall amount of raids, but the increasing numberof them is a bit
startling. This feeling of alarm is compounded by the realization that
we only really hear about the botched raids in which someone gets
severely injured or killed.

It's also a bit alarming that
there is no recourse for civilians after the fact in a lot of these cases.
In most of these botched raids you guys get investigated, maybe get
suspended for a little while, see a shrink, then come back like nothing
happened (well, okay, maybe you get that promotion a year later than you would've otherwise). We, on the other hand, are at least out hundreds of dollars in repairs.
If we resist because we're startled we get smacked, shot, put in jail for life, or put on death row depending on how 'bad' we behave and how hyped up on adrenaline you guys are. In a lot of communities we can't even sue you or the PD in civil court for a botched raid since any
damage or deaths would be caused in a due to decisions in the 'heat of the moment in a dangerous
situation'.
"I have it from ex-cops I know that it is (unofficial) policy to make
sure you kill if you shoot - a wounded person, perp or not, will take
you to court and ruin your career while a corpse rarely results in so
much as a reprimand."

I've heard the same thing from a few officers I've known, powerclam. They've also given me the same advice when it comes to self defense. I find the later kind of ironic since it's the cops flipping out over the potential of getting shot when they do assaults that contributes to some of these botched raid incidents.


Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 30, 2006 05:41 PM

35 Officer safety is being overblown. Being a cop is a dangerous game and an Ego trip. If they can't handle it then quit the ego trip. I know some good ones and I know some sorry ones. My problem is the good ones always defend the sorry ones. Reminds me of muslims.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 30, 2006 05:41 PM

36 larry:
The hollywood shootout was 'high profile' it is not the only case of a suspect wearing body armor. a simple google search turned up many more:

The vehicle chase lasted several minutes until the suspect attempted to drive the wrong way through a McDonald's drive-thru. He became blocked in and was unable to escape. The suspect exited the vehicle wearing a bulletproof vest. He pointed his handgun to his right temple and began to walk towards Officer Oakes.


easthampdtapeBefore noon on Wednesday Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe named the deceased as 23 year-old David Hill of Eastham who was arrested twice by local police earlier this year. O’Keefe also said the suspect was wearing a bullet-proof vest. O'Keefe also said the preliminary investigation indicated police did everything proper to "protect the community and themselves". Media reports say Hill had called relatives after the shooting saying he wanted to take someone hostage and kill a police officer.

Wilson approached the suspect and fired several times, but the shots appeared useless due to the multiple layers of body armor, witnesses said.
He was wearing both a bulletproof vest and a military flak jacket.

he Officer returned fire and wounded the suspect. New Haven Police took the suspect into custody and he was found to be wearing a bulletproof vest.

In March 2004, a man wearing a bulletproof vest fired on three Dallas police officers. Officers in that incident were investigating a report that the gunman was selling weapons in the parking lot.

After returning and killing Trooper Phillips, the man, heavily armed and wearing a bullet proof vest, stole Trooper Phillips' cruiser

When the suspect was secured by the officers on the scene, he was found to be wearing a bullet proof vest. Further investigation revealed that the handgun in the suspect's possession had been reported stolen from Fairfax, Virginia.

I'm guessing that is why in some places Felons are not supposed to own bulletproof vests?

Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 05:43 PM

37 Wolfenfairy:Only a raging asshole thinks that the public hasn't the right or ability to discuss the actions and policies of our civil servants.In "the old days," cops didn't hassle law abiding citizens, and they sure as hell didn't blow tham away in no-knock warrant raids, or run them down chasing car thiefs. Today is a different story. Care to explain the adversarial, "us Vs. them" attitude most large police departments take towards the public?Cops are routinely exonerated for cowardly and unnecessary brutality, even after that brutality has been caught on film--and you know it. How long has it been since the last footage surfaced of cops striking a victim already pinned to the ground? (Answer: just this month.)This country has serious problems with its law enforcement policies, techniques, personnel, accountability, and purpose.Excusing away these problems, or even ignoring themis despicable, and much more harmful than exaggerating them is. I'm sure that 93 year old woman shot to death recently didn't give a rat's ass what caliber the slugs that killed her were.I have a real problem with people who refer to their profession as "the Brotherhood," rather than as a job.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 06:06 PM

38 rather their fury and embarrassment at having been (for just that one time) momentarily outgunned

Did you even read my post, Larry? The Texas Tower Massacre resulted in 15 dead and 31 wounded... you may not be old enough to have heard of it, but it's happened more than once.

Here's why patrol car rifles are needed: rifles are simply far superior weapons to pistols... any person with any amount of training will select a rifle given the choice. The reason most police officers carry pistols is because they're easily portable, and their confrontations are typically up-close and personal... but what if they're exchanging fire with somebody outside 25 yards? Hits at that range, particularly under pressure, are very difficult. That goes double for moving targets.

The longer sight radius and barrel of most rifles allows far greater accuracy, which most would agree is a good thing. Rifles are also heavier, and will accomodate more-powerful rounds (typically 5.56 NATO) with less felt recoil than even a comparable shotgun. This speeds training, lessens flinching, and provides better extended range capability than even your best shotgun (only likely to be effective to 100 meters or so, and then only with a rifled slug). Patrol car rifle calibers are also a major benefit against body-armor-clad criminals, which we are seeing more and more frequently.

Incidently, a proper frangible 5.56 round is actually safer for the public than a standard 9mm FMJ. The frangible round will not over-penetrate nearly as much, which equals increased safety for bystanders and hostages. This is also one of the reasons why police officers use hollow-point rounds.

As for shooting the dog, it's necessary more often than you'd think. Dogs are inherently territorial, and even a normally-docile poodle-sized dog can turn into a serious impediment when he's got his teeth sunk into your leg. We typically used fire extinguishers or noise-flash distraction devices on them... we only shot them (usually with a suppressed MP5) if it looked like they would compromise a planned stealth entry, or if they were drug-lab or gang clubhouse guard dogs. It's no fun trying to wade through 4 and 5 pitbulls.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 06:20 PM

39 I have a real problem with people who refer to their profession as "the Brotherhood," rather than as a job.

So you have a big problem with the Marines too?

And if you're expecting me to defend or justify racisism, corruption, cases where excessive force was clearly used, or where a corrupt department raided an innocent person's property and attempted to use the drug forfeiture laws to take it, you're going to be sorely disapponted... I dislike that kind of thuggery even more than you do.

Incidently, I'm a civilian now... been out of it for several years.

You implying we can't have an opinion on the tactics and
equipment since we haven't been in the line of fire

I never said anything of the sort... everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That said, a person's amount of experience or expertise within the area-of-interest will definitely affect how much I listen to that opinion. What I did do was encourage one poster to gain some experience with a tactic before passing judgement on the practice.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 06:37 PM

40 Let's dispense with the canard that the criminals are better armed than the cops right now. One incident in North hollywoodis insufficientto make this ridiculous claim. The North Hollywood shooters were shot dead by the police, and they did not have tanks and assault helicopters--the police do.The gangsters and robbers of the thirties had tommy guns and other weapons that weresuperior towhat the cops had, so the claim that recently the "bad guys"have become as well armed as the police is just plain ridiculous.According to the "the cops need to be armed tothe teeth" argument, America should just have it's military enforce the law. Of course, officer safety isn't the reason America formed a civil police force. Unfortunately, that has become the driving policy of most police departments nowadays--at the obvious expense of the public. Yes, criminal sometimes shoot back. Toigh shit. You knew the job could be dangerous when you took it, Fred.The canard that police are overworked, underfunded, and underpaid does not stand up to even cursory scrutiny. The exact opposite tends to be true.The job of the police is to enforce the law, not to protect the public. They are trained to do just that.The truth is, America doesn't need a militarized civil police force, and these paramilitary forces are being used improperly against the public, resulting in deaths of those they're ostensibly meant to serve.Minding your own business and obeying the endless list of American laws will not protect you from a militarized police force with a gung ho "us vs. them" mentality against the public. The former police Chief of LA, Daryll Gates, was famous for promoting this policy--and his policies have been widely adopted. I shouldn't have to point out he was, and is, a scum-sucking asshole who made LA worse for law abiding citizens than for criminals.Things need to be changed, over the objections of Gates style cops and their proponents government, and, God help us, in the public.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 06:49 PM

41 Jeff:
According to the "the cops need to be armed to the teeth" argument, America should just have it's military enforce the law.
The 'Posse Comitatus Act' forbids it, nice loophole to make a military trained law enforcement unit however.



Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 07:04 PM

42 Jeff:
You guys keep ignoring the fact that SWAT teams only execute a warrant, that has been signed by a Judge. The SWAT teams do not get to selectively choose which warrants they enforce, they have not done the investigation, most of the time they are called in by Detectives or the D.E.A. They limit their research into breaching the building, and the threats they may face, they are also sometimes given a list of materials to look for during a search.
The fact that Police forces are under funded (like the guy said about the reason cops cannot fire enough rounds to be effective marksmen) means that keeping a highly specialized force to do nothing but hostage rescue would be removed from the budget in a hurry, this is one of the reasons they are utilized for other operations, to justify their continued maintenance.

Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 07:16 PM

43 oh, so now we're going to go back 40 years (!), and bring up the texas tower, newguy? just 'rip the stories right off the front page', huh? ok. chances are, i'm older than you; and i'm from texas, so i remember it well. it's interesting that you want to use it as an exhibit for your "lets militarize the cops even more" case, though.

you had a guy in a hardened, elevated sniper post firing down on folks. exactly what military weaponry would have worked on him, had the cops then had it? are you proposing giving mortars to the cops? bazookas? TOW missiles? rpg's? stingers? no? why not?

as for shooting the dog, no, it's NOT "more necessary than you'd think". this is a perfect example of how cops have become SO hung up on "officer safety" that they've made abominations seem ok. in fact, they've made them procedure. every month, we read of instances (and see video) of cops gleefully tasering grannies. and loudmouths. and, lately, small children. (go ahead: google it.) cops have made their precious "safety" so paramount, that we occasionally get videos of cops shooting the tail-wagging family spaniel, as in the infamous tennessee case 2 yrs ago. (you remember: dad had left his wallet on the car roof; cops pulled him over as a "possible bank robber"; supercop blew fido's head off as he playfully bounded out of the car. in front of the kids. despite their pleas to let them close the car door. which were denied, because the family-of-four was being held facedown on the ground. an most unpleasant 'felony stop' for the cleavers, but at least the officers were safe.)

the cops later apologized - sort of, in court - but made it clear that they'd do it again, because god forbid a cop gets nipped by a friendly, tail-wagging terrier. that sort of "risk" is just unacceptable for cops these days, huh?

and there's the rub: militarizing the cops does 2 things, both of then bad.
1) it gives the cops a 'soldier' mindset. how do soldiers deal with their enemies? they "kill people and break things", right? is that how we want cops to operate?
2) allowing the cops to become commandos, or ninjas, only exacerbates a 'we're above law' mentality that all police forces must guard against. do we want cops to become more valuable than everyone else? more special? do *extra-special* people tend to follow the same rules that constrain mere mortals? did the praetorian guards scrupulously follow roman law regarding emporer succession?

Posted by: larry at November 30, 2006 07:18 PM

44 New Guy:My comment was to Wolfenberry, not you, so I'm not surprised you misrepresented it.I would argue that being aMarine isn't a regular civilian job, but according to your argument, I guess you don't have a big problem with brotherhoods like the Nazis, militias, the Aryan Brotherhood, Islamic Brotherhood, etc.An absolutist argument is a specious argument. I don't expect anyone who disagrees with me to defend the worst police atrocities imaginable. I expect they're wrong, not raging extremists. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise.Mayberry did indeed claim that onlythose with police experiencewere qualified to make comments about law enforcement. This group would include the most corrupt and incompetent people ever to wear a badge, so you can understand why I have a problem with self serving and idiotic statements like that. The idea that the police can effectively police themselves is ludicrous, IAD or no IAD. Unless you're posting comments under two different screen names, it wasn't directed at you.I've nevershot myself in the footto gain some experience on the subject, but it sounds reasonable to you. I don't need to try it myself to know it's a bad idea, and one that shouldn't be practiced by anybody.The argument that only first hand experience is valid, is even more juvenile than an absolutist one. According to this argument, you cant comment on McNamera unless you've known him personally, and you cant comment on blowing away old ladies unless you've also done that personally.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 07:21 PM

45 Let's dispense with the canard that the criminals are better armed than the cops right now.

So what? I don't want parity... I want a better gun than the other guy... all the time, every time. If you're fighting for your life or somebody else's, and you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong somewhere along the way.
so the claim that recently the "bad guys"have become as well armed as the police is just plain ridiculous

And what did the G-men in the 1920's and 30's era do? They armed themselves similarly.
America should just have it's military enforce the law

Nobody is saying this. Nice strawman. Next.

The canard that police are overworked, underfunded, and underpaid does
not stand up to even cursory scrutiny. The exact opposite tends to be
true.

How much would you want to be paid to risk your life protecting a snide, judgemental, arrogant individual like yourself? In NYC, cops are paid less than teachers... 31K compared to 39K. That's $8000 dollars less per year (starting pay). How's that for cursory scrutiny?

Minding your own business and obeying the endless list of American laws will not protect you

Right. Because we did away with all that "probable cause," "due process," and "trial by jury" stuff years ago.






Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 07:24 PM

46 Davec:The posse comitatus law is one of the reasons the argument for arming cops to the teeth is so ridiculous. Civil authorities were never meant to be armed so heavily. As you point out, training cops to act like commandoes exploits a loophole in the law--a loopholeI was trying to point out through absurdist sarcasm.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 07:27 PM

47 I guess you don't have a big problem with brotherhoods like the Nazis, militias, the Aryan Brotherhood, Islamic Brotherhood

I really don't care what they call themselves... I care more about what they do. I wasn't the one making an issue of "brotherhood."

I've nevershot myself in the footto gain some experience on the subject

Because that's exactly the same as working in a field to gain experience, thus lending depth, understanding, and credibility to your position. Is that what you're trying to imply? You've no experience in law enforcement, warrant service, or tactical operations, yet you feel we should lend great weight to your opinion on the matter? You might take shooting lessons from a guy who has never picked up a gun, but I wouldn't.

The argument that only first hand experience is valid, is even more juvenile than an absolutist one

No... it's a perfectly legitimate point. You're welcome to your opinion on quantum mechanics and the properties of quarks, but if your knowledge is superficial, and you have no background in the field to speak of (either educational or vocational), expect a group of physicists to be skeptical, particularly if you can't even demonstrate an undergraduate level of knowledge. Your opinion may be "valid" to you, but it would certainly be viewed with a jaundiced eye by those assembled.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 07:47 PM

48 Dumb Guy:Parity? Timothy McViegh blew up a federal building, and the islamopithecines want to use nukes. Should cops be allowed to use these weapons? Outside of Waco,I mean. Where do you draw the line?The cops don't need to be better armed, because they outnumber the criminals overwhelmingly. You could give a nut a fucking bazooka or a tank, and he could still be taken down--and has.If someone is too much of a pussy to risk his life against someone whocould, conceivably,be better armed than him and a hundred of his fellow cops, he shouldn't be working as a cop in the first place. This country needs cops with at least as much balls as the criminals, not less.The G-men of the thirties used Tommy guns--police forces did not, especially not for petty drug busts. The G-men weren't used to serve no-knock warrants on old ladies, either. I knew someone would use this lame argument, but I didn't want to insult their intelligence in advance by pointing out that little fact.Having TWAT teams that are indistinguishable from the military is the reason I wrote that we might as well have the military enforce the law. I guess it was too subtle for you. Your argument is a straw man argument.When I was in college, I worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store in a crappy neighborhood. My job was a thousand times more dangerous than any law enforcement job--as the death statistics prove conclusively--and I never complained about my low wages. Any cops out there paid a clerk's wages? Didn't think so.Other people have to go to college to gain job skills, or gain them through experience. Cops get free, on the job training, so quit whining about pay scales. Teachers deserve more money than cops, but whether you agree with that or not, teachers don't get massive overtime payments, and their pay increase scale is paltry compared to pay increasesfor cops. Cooking the books with your NYC figures doesn't change these facts. Not only that, but schools don't claim massive fraudulent overtime hours--large police departments do so regularly. This is all assuming your figures are true. I happen to know that not all teachers in NYC start out at 39k."Probable cause" is usually whatever a cop says it is, no matter how improbable, "due process" means innoocent people sit in jail awaiting a trial they may lose, and "trial by jury" means O.J. and the Rodney King cops walk free. I'veread some good arguments on this thread that were in favor of over-arming the police, but yours aren't among them. Yours are poorly constructed and self-serving. Self-serving assuming you really were a cop, of course. If you were, did you take an early retirement with those stingy benefits you were snivelling about?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 08:02 PM

49 I have never overlooked the fact that SWAT teams get their no-knock warrants from judges. This entire process is a travesty, as I've pointed out repeatedly.Cops can use police shooting ranges in their spare time whenever they feel like it, although its sophistry to claim they fire too many rounds because they're poor shots. The victims of police shootings are often filled with more than 50 slugs. It's also sophistry to use this argument to claim police forces are underfunded.Check the police budget in the city you live in, then tell me if it's underfunded. Bear in mind that I will check up on it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 08:07 PM

50 P.S.,
Your comment about "continued mainenence" proves the many points I've made about justifying bloated budgets. It's impossible to have a bloated, underfunded budget, by the way.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 08:10 PM

51 Dumb Guy:Your already piss-poor arguments have descended into sheer petifoggery. Why don't you address some of the issues Larry brought up, instead of wasting my time with unprincipled apologetics for scumbags on the public dole.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 08:18 PM

52 Not bad Wolfenberry. Not bad. Can both sides be right? What can be done to protect both the cops and the innocent citizens? My take is that cops are trained to escalate situations under the guise they are just protecting themselves. Again, there are two sides. Here's a true one. The video was one TV a few years ago.

Two Texas highway patrolmen stopped a car with two black young men in it. They said they were driving suspicious. To make it short the cops told the two young men to exit their car and kneel by the side of the road. It had just rained and the roadside was wet and muddy. The two young men were well dressed on their way to some function and refused to kneel in the mud. One cop began screaming and hitting one man behind the knees to make him kneel. The man turned and punched the cop knocking him down. He then turned his back and began walking away when the cop shot him in the back, killing him. The cops were found not guilty of any crime. They claim merely did as they were trained to do. They followed police procedure. I say the procedure was wrong. We can come up with a thousand reasons to over react. Should everyone build a fence around their house that will stop an elephant just in case an elephant escapes from some zoo? Making people who haven't comitted a crime kneel in the mud is the same as making the elephant fence. Totally unnessary. If I am ever stopped and instructed to kneel in the mud while dressed in my Sunday best I will be shot too. Unless I am the fastest draw.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 30, 2006 09:38 PM

53 "Dumb Guy"

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

The cops don't need to be better armed, because they outnumber the criminals overwhelmingly

Actually, no. Reference this article on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15960666/

7 million americans in the justice system, compared to approx 950,000 police employees (total, including dispatchers and such) in the US, including federal officers. By my math, that means the criminals outnumber the police by about seven to one. Did you have some other numbers you wanted to use? In case you were referring to when backup arrives, most cops patrol in one-man cars, so until backup gets there, it's generally the officer who is outnumbered

I worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store in a crappy neighborhood

You brave, hardy soul... confronting death in every aisle. Those cowardly cops in that crappy neighborhood probably called you for backup, didn't they? I'll bet you got called to domestic disputes by the beer cooler and broke up bar-fights over by the slurpee machine every night. Those traffic stops you did to those armed gang members in the parking lot must have been pretty hairy as well.
My job was a thousand times more dangerous than any law enforcement job

The statistics on workplace fatalities puts police officers jobs as roughly four times as risky as cashiers... here's a pdf from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Having TWAT teams that are indistinguishable from the military

So we use frag grenades, thermobaric weaponry, close air support, and have identical rules of engagement?

Your problem is that you're fundamentally a cop-hater... a bigot. You rail against your own inaccurate stereotype, and consider all cops foot soldiers of "the man." The saddest part of it all is that, like most hate derived from identity politics, it's based on pure ignorance.

Greyrooster:

You hit on something very important when you said: "My take is that cops are trained to escalate situations under the guise they are just protecting themselves"

And you're exactly right. Cops aren't allowed to lose a fight... because now the bad guy has your gun, your radio, your OC, your ASP, your cuffs, your taser, your car, your rifle... as a cop, losing a fight usually means serious injury or death. Try to look at it in that light when you attempt to discern what was going through an officer's mind during a confrontation.

Also, an officer has a duty to arrest... he doesn't have the option of simply fleeing a confrontation like a civilian. This is one of the reasons why police are generally allowed to use necessary force to effect an arrest, while a citizen may typically only use equal force. An officer's greater responsibility is recognized under the law, and thus police officers are granted power commensurate with that duty.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at November 30, 2006 10:22 PM

54 Cops can use police shooting ranges in their spare time whenever they feel like it

Free ammunition? I'm assuming if the answer is no, you have no idea how expensive it is to go the range with a good supply of ammunition.

although its sophistry to claim they fire too many rounds because they're poor shots. The victims of police shootings are often filled with more than 50 slugs.

Where you live they call that being a marksman then?
What is the ratio of expended to hit? are you claiming that the large majority strikes the victim?

It's impossible to have a bloated, underfunded budget, by the way.

Budget procurement is the same for the Police as it is in your office, if you use something 3 times a year, and pay over a hundred thousand a year for it, someone from above is going to "trim the fat" for you, however if you show how you use the same 4 days a week, a little bit harder to remove it.
The Police budget is also like your environment, it is possible to under fund a project, and fund others correctly. Here's a hint, the taxpayer doesn't want to spend thousands of dollars a month for their local police force to buy practice ammunition.





Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 11:15 PM

55 "The argument that only first hand experience is valid, is even more juvenile than an absolutist one. According to this argument, you cant comment on McNamera unless you've known him personally, and you cant comment on blowing away old ladies unless you've also done that personally."

I have never, and would never claim that you "can't" comment on something you have no knowledge of. By all means, you have the right to comment all day and all night about it, even in your sleep if you like.

However, no one, least of all those who DO have personal experience, respects what you would have to say. By all means comment all you like. But don't expect to be respected or treated seriously or listened to. In other words, you comments would have about as much interest as the exact number of fleas on my dog's behind.

This argument will never be "won" or "lost". Those who hate the police always will, and those who respect them will continue to respect them. I have a sneaking suspicion that those who have snide comments about the police have probably been arrested before for one thing or another, or have "checkered" pasts, or have "habits" they are secretly ashamed of. In any case, these people will be the first to dial 911 when their houses are broken into, their purses are snatched, or their kittens caught in the chimney.

Wolfenberry

Posted by: Wolfenberry at November 30, 2006 11:51 PM

56 New Gay:You are devoid of reason, and immune to logic. Sadly, I predicted you would right something this stupid.Unless all the people locked behind bars were working in concert commiting the same crime, your statistics are meaningless. When a group of people commit a crime, there are always a larger number of cops able to go after them. That's just common sense--something you obviously lack.Single cops in cars don't take on the fictional hyper armed criminals you keep going on about. Maybe you can explain why hordes of cops show up for simple traffic pull overs if the first cops feel threatened.While I was a clerk, the local police tried to trick me into selling beer to some squirrel in the explorer scouts. They were just doing it to serve and protect me, of course. After all, if they were concerned about the safety of underaged drinkers, they wouldn't throw them in jail, would they?No cop does all the things you described every night, not even throwing innocent husbands in jail for domestic disputes. If they don't like their jobs, they can feel free to quit. Until then, stop whining about payscales. Most cops are woefully uneducated, but they can make far more than someone with a college degree. They make a hell of a lot more than soldiers fighting in Iraq, so shut the fuck up.You're cooking the books again with your labor statistics quote. You're comparing total numbers instead of proportional numbers, you moron. There are far more law enforcement officials in America than convenience store clerks. Parade Magazine publishes a reputable list of the most dangerous jobs every year, and C store clerks have a much more dangerous job. Cops don't even make it to the top ten. The study you pointed to isn't reputable at all, even disregarding the difference between total and proportional numbers.Are the Close Quarter Combat techniques used by Twat teams the same as those used by real commandoes? Do they dress up like GI Joe or all in Black like the SS/Gestapo? Are they trained by military commandos?Your problem is that you're fundamentally an immoral, unethical apologist for vile policies and behaviour. You excuse every police atrocity, and label anyone who criticizes them as a "Cop hater." I'm an asshole hater, not a cop hater, and cops who shoots dogs and old ladies, or taser grannies, women and children are assholes.If you want an example of a bigot, I'd say the film of your boys shooting an innocent, unarmed Black guy in the back is a good example. Of course, that asshole was obviously bigoted against the public, period.You lie as badly as crooked cops do, but I don't believe for a minute you were ever a cop. A real cop would have puffed his chest up and told me what a tough guy he was supposed to be.My sister and old boss used to be cops, and the kind of low-lives you're defending here are the reason they quit.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 01, 2006 12:18 AM

57 Davec:My brother in law used free ammunition went he practiced. Show me proof that any police department in the country doesn't allow its officers enough ammunition and training time to become proficcient with a gun.Good luck with that.The ratio of expended to hit is never the same, son. If someone has 50 fucking slugs pulled out of his corpse, that's too many. Maybe you can explain why cops often reload and fire off another magazine into a prone corpse.Your description of budget hijinks doesn't help your case, it simply proves mine. Police departments virtually always go into the black, even when crime rates drop. They also get all kinds of special budget increases from city councils, ballot initiatives, policeman's ball drives, etc. Police departments don't pay the same price for ammunition that we do.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 01, 2006 12:26 AM

58 Mayberry:I don't respect a thing anexcusing sophistlike you has to say. I don't have to shoot an old lady to know that no-knock warrants are complete bullshit, and I don't have to travel to the sun to give you an accurate reading of its surface and core temperatures.Claiming that only first hand knowledge is valid is as sophomoric an argument as exists. According to your criteria, no SWAT teamrookie should be "treated seriously or listened to" until he goes on his first "mission" against a drug dealer (what a joke,) and shoots an old lady. Can you tell me why the police didn't arrest the drug dealer when he sold them the fucking drugs? Was dressing up like GI Joe or the Gestapo/SS and kicking his door in later just too much fun to pass up?This "argument" will be won by the public when we reform our broken criminal justice system. Those who reflexively defend every police problem always will, and those with enough integrity to holdour civil servantsaccountable will do so. Liars like you will continue tosmear anyone concerned with reforming law enforcement as a "cop hater," no matter how valid our concerns are.By claiming that anyone with a legitimate concern has a criminal record, you validate my description of the adversarial, "us vs, them" policies of most police departments--not to mention the mindset of cops and blind cop supporters.Speaking personally, every time I've dialed 911, the police showed up more than an hour later. They were a real help. No doubt if I were a woman who said her husband wouldn't give her money for new shoes, they would have shown up within minutes to haul me off to jail on a "domestic" charge. No, the police are more likely to arrest me for defending myself from a burglar. You know it too, which is why I have zero respect for your dishonest opinions.Why don't you tell me how tazering grannies, women, and kids is acceptable? We already know you excuse the shooting deaths of old women. Why don't you stop defending every miscarriage of justice that causes public concern, and offer a coherent suggestionfor addressing aproblem of huge fucking proportions?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 01, 2006 12:49 AM

59 Hey Mayberry, I almost forgot: You claim to have been a cop, andyou will not respect, treat seriously,or listen to any observation about police procedure, unless that person has police experience. With this kind of misplaced arrogance, is it any wonder that innocent people keep getting blown away? Is it any wonder many people no longer trust the police?Thanks for providing proof that our police departments need to be reformed. Thanks for providing that glimpse into the mind of someone who thinks only cops shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. A criminal shoots somebady accidentally, and he needs to go to jail. A cop shoots an innocent person deliberately, and its a "good shooting." No big deal, these things happen.Fuck you.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 01, 2006 01:13 AM

60 i gotta go with bargholz on this one. i've been in several web conversations about out-of-control cops, etc., and eventually, inevitably, they turn ugly. bad words; mean names called; all that.

the thing is, that in *each and every instance*, the guy who started the conversation's downward slide into profanity threats is....the guy who (at least claims to) makes a living as a cop. every time. see above: that's pretty much what happened here, too. (the post addressed to "wolfenfairy"). seeing as how that more or less confirms the argument of "cops are out of control, and see themselves as above law societal norms", that's a bad sign.

a worse sign is, presumably the cop (or the wannabe poser) (but they can't ALL be wannabe posers, now, can they. or are you lying about your cop experience, newguy?), the cop already knows that; and he just doesn't care. so! how might we describe an individual who ascribes his identity solely from belonging to an armed group; an armed group that literally sees the world as "us" and "them"; an armed group that sees themselves as above the law and social norms; an armed group so contemptuous of 'normal' folks that they kill their dogs, rather than risk being nipped?

oh, i dunno....i'm thinking "crip", maybe, or "vice lord", or "sociopath". certainly not officer friendly, anyway. is that really how police in american society should be behaving? like a mixture of pablo escobar and hannibal lecter?

Posted by: larry at December 01, 2006 03:46 AM

61 well, that's embarrassing. just re-read the posts, and i was all wrong: the cop here isn't the guy who escalated the ugliness, it was the guy i hailed as "right". shame on me. i blame society for this. and racism.

therefore, under recognized web law, my above argument is hereby invalid and not worthy of consideration; i lose the argument. cops aren't just normal people who took the job for the pensions: i hereby admit they're heroes.

maybe having to type that will teach me to double-check before i hit the frickin' "post" button.

Posted by: larry at December 01, 2006 03:52 AM

62 Larry:



well, that's embarrassing.
just re-read the posts, and i was all wrong: the cop here isn't the guy
who escalated the ugliness, it was the guy i hailed as "right". shame
on me. i blame society for this. and racism.



No worries, Larry. We've all done it, and I didn't take it
personally. A simple error like that doesn't necessarily invalidate
your arguments, which you presented better than Jeff.



or are you lying about your cop experience, newguy?



That could be taken personally, and was totally unnecessary.

Jeff:

New Gay:

Ah... so now you're leveling that at me as an insult? So you're a homophobe too? This just gets better and better.

You are devoid of reason, and immune to logic. Sadly, I predicted you would right something this stupid.

Heh. Heh. Heheheheheh... *snort* stop.... just stop... you're killing me.

When a group of people commit a crime, there are always a larger number of cops able to go after them

Eventually... but not right away.

Maybe you can explain why hordes of cops show up for simple traffic pull overs if the first cops feel threatened.

The answer to that is contained within the question... thanks for saving me the effort.

While I was a clerk, the local police tried to trick me into selling beer to some squirrel in the explorer scouts... After all, if they were concerned about the safety of underaged drinkers, they wouldn't throw them in jail, would they?

It's called a sting operation. They were attempting to target the dealer instead of the user. Didn't you write:

Can you tell me why the police didn't arrest the drug dealer when he sold them the fucking drugs?

Yes... precisely. Isn't that what they're trying to do by sending an underage guy into a convenience store like yours? Targeting the dealer instead of the user... ask, and ye shall receive, Jeff.

If they don't like their jobs, they can feel free to quit... blah blah college degree... blah blah Iraq.... blah blah shut the fuck up.

Anyone who doesn't like their job can quit. If you don't like the pay, go back to school. Consider, however, that if you only offer low-pay, you'll get low-skilled workers. As any economist will tell you, there is no such thing as a labor shortage, only jobs where people are unwilling to pay sufficient wages to make them attractive. If you want better, and more-educated cops, be prepared to pay more.

You're cooking the books again with your labor statistics quote. You're
comparing total numbers instead of proportional numbers, you moron

Good Lord... do you not understand fatality rates? Those are proportional numbers, usually expressed per hundred thousand workers. You're starting to make be feel bad... it's like I'm beating up a child.

The study you pointed to isn't reputable at all

The numbers I cited come straight from the US Department of Labor... I admit it's not Parade magazine, but it's the best I could do.

Do they dress up like GI Joe or all in Black like the SS/Gestapo?

Ah... it's about time Godwin showed up.

Your problem is that you're fundamentally an immoral, unethical
apologist for vile policies and behaviour. You excuse every police
atrocity, and label anyone who criticizes them as a "Cop hater."

I have never excused racist, brutal, or corrupt behavior by police... if you'll reread my posts, you'll note that I specifically encouraged people to go to court on such issues. I dislike those kinds of officers even more than you do, because they make an already-hard job even harder for the good cops. Corrupt, racist, and brutal cops also give ammunition to smack-talking cop-haters like yourself. Don't want to be called a hater? Try engaging in some actual debate without the insults and stereotyping. "Shut the fuck up" does not qualify as debate.

You lie as badly as crooked cops do, but I don't believe for a minute
you were ever a cop. A real cop would have puffed his chest up and told
me what a tough guy he was supposed to be.

For my own part, I don't see the need for self-aggrandizing macho bullsh*t to prove one's manhood. It's interesting that you can't believe I was ever a cop because I don't fit your pejurious stereotype... ergo I must be a liar and a fraud. Talk about your self-serving and self-reinforcing positions...

Posted by: TheNewGuy at December 01, 2006 10:31 AM

63 I think using the term "hate the cops" shows something. Only crooks hate the cops. Because one doesn't agree with the policies now taught police doesn't mean anyone hates them. I do think that the agressive behavior on many cops escalate situations that could have been settled without violence on either part. A drunk acts like a drunk. Because they may be argumentative doesn't mean they should have their heards busted open and charged with 14 other phoney charges. I have seen this happen. I believe cops are taught to be overly agressive under the guise of taking charge of a sitution. Sometimes this behavior may be necessary. But often it isn't. Some cops just have a God syndrome they can't control. I also detect a we and they attitude on the part of cops. Perhaps, a reaction to how they are treated. Most cops in my community don't last long when they take an overly agressive attitude. The ones who last, use their heads more than their nightsticks.

Secondly, why would anyone wish to be a cop? Only way you can make your fortune is to be a crooked cop. Stupid hours. (unless your a L.A. Ca. cop, they only work 3 days a week.) Low pay (if you have a brain) and dangerous. Has to be an ego trip. Maybe the excitement is the reason. Not enough for me.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 01, 2006 10:54 AM

64 Referring to comment #53. Problem is is that 99% of arrests are not people who would take the officers' gun, car, radio, taser, hangcuffs, etc: etc:. Why treat the 99% like the 1%? OVERKILL will come back to haunt the police. It's happening now in New Orleans. Did you know that on any given day 100 of the 1400 New Orleans cops are off work because of injuries received during arrests? Highest rate in the nation. Cops say it's because of the animals in the ghettos. Animals in the ghettos say they are sick of laying on the dirty ground without reason every time some cop desides to have some fun. Of course the black administation has nothing to say. Don't wish to upset the black majority voters or the white cops who will abandon ship and leave nothing but black cops who steal cadillacs and expensive watches during hurricanes. Perhaps there is no one answer.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 01, 2006 11:07 AM

65 Hey! This post has been a good learning experience. Some thought provoking content. Wonder why?


Perhaps, it's because the social left (piddledick, John Ryan, and Greg) were not part of it. I've always been against banning. But?

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 01, 2006 11:10 AM

66 Because they may be argumentative doesn't mean they should have their
heards busted open and charged with 14 other phoney charges. I have
seen this happen

And in the bad-ole-days of police work, it happened a lot more... "contempt of cop" earned you a beatdown. However, as policing has become more of a career, and more departments are professionalizing and requiring college degrees, this is changing. Back in the 1960's, only 3 states even required training/academies to be a cop... now all 50 states do. Some departments now require degrees starting out, and an even greater percentage require degrees for advancement.

As I mentioned, if we want better/smarter and more-educated police, we have to offer incentives...and that means paying them. It's also probably not enough to pay them what an average college grad makes... they do specialized work that includes dealing with antisocial and dangerous people... there is significant risk . As you so adroitly pointed out, it's not enough for you, and you're right... only offering low pay will bring in people signing up for other reasons... some for dedication, but others for ego, power, ability to carry a gun, whatever.

Most cops in my community don't last long when they take an overly
agressive attitude. The ones who last, use their heads more than their
nightsticks

As I was warned in the academy, a cop can get into a fight every single day of his career if he doesn't watch his mouth. It's stupid, but true... and there are cops out there who do act that way. You can get a priest to swing at you if you bait him enough. Again, I think the bad old days are going away. Current academies teach verbal judo and similar techniques to defuse instead of escalate situations. It doesn't always work, but it does help. It's also a red flag for sergeants and lieutenants when an officer consistently gets into fights.

I think law enforcement is really changing for the better... one only has to look back a couple of decades to see how far we've really come.

Posted by: TheNewGuy at December 01, 2006 11:23 AM

67 Ad on radio in New Orleans. The police dept is hiring. All required is an desire to help the community. Special signup bonuses for ex-officers and retired military. Does that sound like they are looking for college grads? What they are looking for is fools. New Orleans has had over 300 murders in the last 15 months and not one conviction. Give New Orleans a call if you wish to be in law enforcement. And that's a joke. It's not law enforcement. It's survival. Of course it's very racial and bigoted to mention that all the murderers and robbers are black. That's why I enjoy being a racist. We can tell the truth. And if you survive you will be known as a dishonest pig always on the take.


Forget this subject. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. We live in a world where cops can't shoot at escaping crooks but will arrest a decent citizen for spanking his kids. Where cops feel they can beat a person into submission with clubs when there is 30 cops and only one arrestee. (Rodney King tapes) 30 cops couldn't handle one idiot? Where the cops will arrest you for carrying a pistol for family protection when it's needed.I would like to see a cop brave enough to walk certain areas of New Orleans without a gun. All it takes in one wrong turn in New Orleans, Miami or New York and you WILL be attacked by ghetto rats. Nothing will ever be accomplished until blame is put where it belongs and society does something about it. Good cops have my admiration. But they're still nuts.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 01, 2006 03:26 PM

68 New Gay:Let me begin by saying that a lying aplogist forpredatory police behaviour and policies deserves the thrashing I gave you, complete with any profanity I chose to use. You earned it.Only asswipes with no valid argument point out typos--especially when their own spell-checked grammar is less than perfect. It's a juvenile ploy used to deflect attention froma poor argument.Addressing selected comments only, and employing pettifoggery are also signs of a failed argument."Eventually... but not right away." No shit. This is what I mean about petifoggery. I thought you said cops needed to be armed like GI Joe because there were more criminals than crooks? Oh, that's right. You didn't count the criminals facing the cops, or even the criminals on the streets: you used the ones already locked up to support your ridiculous claim. "The answer to that is contained within the question... thanks for saving me the effort." I thought there were more criminals than cops? You've contradicted yourself again."It's called a sting operation. They were attempting to target the dealer instead of the user."What dealer? I was a clerk in a convenience store, not a crack dealer, and I didn't sell beer to minors. There were no reports of clerks selling beer to minors from that store. The local cops went to every store in the city that sold beer. Their asinine "sting operation" failed to entrap me."Yes... precisely. Isn't that what they're trying to do by sending an underage guy into a convenience store like yours? Targeting the dealer instead of the user... ask, and ye shall receive, Jeff." What the hell are youjabbering about? The cops claim they bought drugs at the house in question earlier in the day. Again, why didn't they arrest the dealer when he sold them the fucking drugs, instead of dressing up like Nazis and blowing away an old lady later that day?"Anyone who doesn't like their job can quit." So why don't they? I thought they were underpaid? If they were as amazingly talented as you claim they are, they would quit and take higher paying jobs. Unless they likeshooting old women and tazering children too much to quit. Of course, you claim they aren't sadistic enough to get off on things like that.Convenience store clerks not only have a higher fatality rate than cops, they are also killed in greater total numbers. No phony statistics can change these facts."Ah... it's about time Godwin showed up." Ah, goon squads have a legitimate reason for dressing up like Nazis. Wearing camouflage fatigues in the city makes perfect sense. Sophomoric fantasies have nothing to do with it."I have never excused racist, brutal, or corrupt behavior by police..." That's all you've been doing. The caveat that you don't was followed by line after line defending the failed policies and incompetence which plagues our police departments.You cant have it both ways. Remember what I wrote about you contradicting yourself?"...smack-talking cop-haters like yourself. Don't want to be called a hater? Try engaging in some actual debate without the insults and stereotyping. 'Shut the fuck up' does not qualify as debate." Here's what I really wrote:"You excuse every police atrocity, and label anyone who criticizes them as a "Cop hater." I'm an asshole hater, not a cop hater, and cops who shoots dogs and old ladies, or taser grannies, women and children are assholes." Ialso wrote:"stop whining about payscales. Most cops are woefully uneducated, but they can make far more than someone with a college degree. They make a hell of a lot more than soldiers fighting in Iraq, so shut the fuck up." There's more than simple insults there, if you'd care to look."For my own part, I don't see the need for self-aggrandizing macho bullsh*t to prove one's manhood." That's whyI doubt you were a cop. WhenI pointed out that you're a liar,I was mostly referring to your distortions and fabrications about law enforcement. Distortions and fabrications that I have refuted one after the other.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 02, 2006 02:09 AM

69 i know i'm getting to this too late, but. have read all the posts, lots to think about. the worrisome thing to me is i notice the anti-cop guys make reference to cops shooting dogs as a matter of policy. then the pro-cop faction says something like 'have to, for officer safety.' maybe it's me - maybe it's because i'm a SOB and like dogs better than people - but it sure seems like that's a surefire way to escalate a tricky situation into one guaranteeing a gunfight, if there's a dog lover inside. if anyone - anyone - shoots my dogs, god help them if i see them before they see me. i would guess there's a lot of people who might feel the same way. i have read that at waco, the atf shot the davidians dogs first thing, right off the bat. making it even worse, i've read those dogs were penned. a mama dog and her 4 pups, safely penned, were killed. can't see why that was necessary, no matter how hard i try. and then the people inside mt carmel opened up on the brave puppy killers, cutting them to ribbons, ive read. wonder why?
waco was 1993. according to these comments section, it looks like the cops are still killing dogs. after all that, i wonder is it more about "procedure" or "provocation"? killing dogs or puppies on a whim strikes me as pretty good evidence that cops have become overmilitarized. if a dog is seen as just an bothersome object to be killed, it's not too much of a leap for a person to be seen as one also.

Posted by: quintus at December 02, 2006 06:36 AM

70 My opinion after reading down.

I mentioned that we don't have a lot of shootouts in my area.

Statistically every household in my state has a rifle that can kill through level 2 balistic protection, so the police here are absolutely outgunned. Some residences still have TNT left over from blowing stumps. So the locals have explosives. Sometimes the locals have C-4, and customized .50 cal rifles which make level 3 protection useless.

Some of the guys posting here make it sound like you should give the cops tanks, etc, in such an enviroment. Wrong! The cops here don't get into a lot of shootouts because they know the people, and they know their enviroment.

If your in a standoff at the edge of some property, and the guy in the house has a .50 cal rifle, don't try and use your car as a barrier. At most, it just makes you less visible.

How does a local officer reduce risk, and resolve situations? Training. Not 'how good is my shooting', but rather 'how sharp is my brain'.

I've mentioned elsewhere that you don't tick off the cops in a small town. That is because they know how to find you, they know what you drive, etc. You can have a shootout if you want, heck, you can kill some cops! But you won't get far.

Cops in the big communities apparently get by not knowing their own area, or the people in it. Shootouts are apparently more common, even though they apply more government gun control in those kinds of places. It makes you wonder a little bit.

We had a guy in a standoff out here, who had a machine gun (media description) and they got him without firing a shot.

I believe in my local cops because I've seen their work, and they are not thugs. I was in a French class with the current chief of police, and he is a responsible guy. I even applied to the local force once, because I wanted to help my community, and an opportunity presented itself. I hate meth labs.

A better qualified applicant got the position.

I don't really trust cops in big communities I've visited. They act funny to me, and I believe there is a different mindset. I think that is the problem. Feds arent locals, and in big towns, the cops themselves aren't 'local', so they are in a 'hostile territory' mindset.

And the ATF is a sin against the American people for existing, so they are in hostile territory anywhere on US soil. My opinion.

So the real answer is to train your cops to serve in their own familiar areas, and to treat whatever area they are in as if it was their community, and their people. Then so what if the locals have truck killing personal ordinance. The cops won't have to face it, anyway.

Government buy the people, not over the people.

USA all the way.

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 02:05 PM

71 Oh yeah,
When I applied for the police position, it paid way more than I could make with only a partial college education, so I think some of the above "STFU" arguments where cops make more than soldiers, are valid.

Anyway, I've seen my police operate (once from the front passenger side of the patrol car) and I trust mine. They are good people. But I don't live in LA, or New Orleans either. I keep thinking that it's a significant point.

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 02:21 PM

72 On a related note:

Any police officer who is not a staunch defender of the Second Amendment is either corrupt as hell, or fooling themselves. No exceptions.

NOPD and 9/11 are the only proof needed.

As Kim duToit puts it, the cop's job in the aftermath of a properly-finished goblin attack is to call in a meat wagon for the goblin carcass and take my statement.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 02, 2006 05:42 PM

73 Michael Weaver:You're right. Smaller communities are different. Big cities want their police officers to live far outside of the cities and communities they work in. Us vs. them.Smaller communities are the only real parts of America left. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the state of large police departments. They wrote a Constitution to prevent the kinds of abuses against the public we're seeing now.The soulless commenters defending police excess on this thread have no honor, and they don't deserve to live in this country. Lenin and Stalin would have loved them, though. Useful idiots.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 12:34 AM

74 Jeff:
People like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would be appalled by people that compare the United States Police to the likes of the Cheka, and Stalin too.



Posted by: davec at December 03, 2006 09:20 AM

75 Davec:I did not compare the police to the Cheka or Stalin. Iwrote quite clearly thatLenin and Stalin would've loved the useful idiots here who defend police excess.They would've. They "loved" the useful idiots in Russia too, and we all know what happened to them.I didn't consider you one of those idiots, but you obviously misread what I wrote. I'd hate to think you were an apologist like Mayberry or New Gay.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 10:29 PM






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0135 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0047 seconds, 83 records returned.
Page size 109 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.