Cops are people too


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

. . .  ironically both victims were minorities themselves which in my view, makes this case an anti-cop hate crime rather than a racist crime.

 

1.  Is this distinction important?  Why?

2.  Is this based in the assumption that it's impossible for a nonwhite to be "racist"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I read some articles this morning that relate well to this discussion.  Hope you won't mind if I share a few.

 

About fanning the flames of hate against police--WHO is doing that?  Consider these articles--

 

Eric Garner's daughter visits memorial to slain New York Police Officers: "We're not anti-police"

She's a beautiful example of forgiveness and turning the other cheek.

 

Racist song at ex-cop's charity event compares Michael Brown to 'roadkill dog'

 

I knew we couldn't fully trust media, but I never dreamed they would stoop this low...

 

Fox Station apologizes to Black Lives Matter protestor for editing chant to say "Kill a Cop"

 

 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say yeah it's a huge problem.  IMO cops should not have access to any weaponry that a regular private citizen can not get access to.

 

I don't quite agree with this.  Cops should never be outgunned when dealing with bad guys; and there's some pretty scary black-market stuff out there.

 

That said, I think there should be much stricter protocols governing whether, when, and how cops may (pardon the pun) "bring out the big guns"; and I agree with the rest of your post.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite agree with this.  Cops should never be outgunned when dealing with bad guys; and there's some pretty scaring black-market stuff out there.

 

I'm gonna side with yjacket here... It's very rare for police officers to need more firepower than their sidearm or the shotgun in the car.  In those rare cases, there are special units with greater firepower that can be called upon as needed.  There's no reason for regular patrol officers to be carrying assault rifles or machine guns.

 

If there's a truly extreme case, we have a National Guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some articles this morning that relate well to this discussion.  Hope you won't mind if I share a few.

 

About fanning the flames of hate against police--WHO is doing that?  Consider these articles--

 

Eric Garner's daughter visits memorial to slain New York Police Officers: "We're not anti-police"

She's a beautiful example of forgiveness and turning the other cheek.

 

 

She is, indeed.

 

 

In poor taste, but I'm not seeing the "racist" bit (unless you refer to the "badder than old King Kong" line, which is taken directly from the Jim Croce song being parodied).

 

A national story about an improvised song in front of a few dozen old guys at an Elks Lodge?  Methinks the real outrage is that someone dared to point out that Michael Brown was a bad egg; and was witless enough to make sure that the comments could be tied back to his real-life identity.

 

I knew we couldn't fully trust media, but I never dreamed they would stoop this low...

 

Fox Station apologizes to Black Lives Matter protestor for editing chant to say "Kill a Cop"

 

 

Unfortunate; but let's not pretend that every news clip that is inconvenient for our side is ipso facto doctored.  The Daily Beast has separate footage of a chant of "What do we want?  Dead Cops!  When do we want it?  Now!!!"; and these were the morons to whom DeBlazio gave a rhetorical pat on the head.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna side with yjacket here... It's very rare for police officers to need more firepower than their sidearm or the shotgun in the car.  In those rare cases, there are special units with greater firepower that can be called upon as needed.  There's no reason for regular patrol officers to be carrying assault rifles or machine guns.

 

If there's a truly extreme case, we have a National Guard.

 

I agree about not having your average patrol officer carrying a machine gun (what exactly is an "assault rifle", by the way?); but the first night of rioting in Ferguson showed us that you could give the National Guard weeks of notice that their services might be needed; and it will still take them twenty-four hours to activate and get on-site once the doodie hits the fan. 

 

I like the idea of local PDs having SWAT units; I just think they're horrifically overused.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about not having your average patrol officer carrying a machine gun (what exactly is an "assault rifle", by the way?); but the first night of rioting in Ferguson showed us that you could give the National Guard weeks of notice that their services might be needed; and it will still take them twenty-four hours to activate and get on-site once the doodie hits the fan. 

 

I like the idea of local PDs having SWAT units; I just think they're horrifically overused.

 

Agreed, definitely overused.  We keep hearing about how officers act on behalf of their own safety... or this is what justifies too much force "He was in fear for his safety."  

 

How heroic.

 

(And yeah, I know "Assault rifle" is an arbitrary designation.  When I say it, I'm thinking of M-16s and the like.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About fanning the flames of hate against police--WHO is doing that?  Consider these articles--

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that no one is "fanning the flames of hate against police"? Do you seriously believe this? Do you honestly need links to media outlets that demostrate that such people exist?

 

You are already on record as stating that you believe that those who encourage such hatred are not morally culpable for the murder of police officers. This looks to be the next logical step in your progression: From stating that such hate-mongers are not culpable to stating that they don't even exist.

 

I knew we couldn't fully trust media, but I never dreamed they would stoop this low...

Again, I don't know what to make of this. Media outlets have been sensationalizing and twisting facts to suit their narratives for many years. Typically, it's done by the Left, but I haven't noticed you hollering about that. I wonder why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that I feel much of the Cop hating going on right now is built off of lies and the media fanning the flames. For now on we should just give the Police officers milk and cookies to pass out. They don't need weapons. Some of the hardest calls for officers to respond to are Domestic calls. They have no clue what they are getting into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Is this distinction important?  Why?

2.  Is this based in the assumption that it's impossible for a nonwhite to be "racist"?

 

 

I believe it is important when we erroneously state that this was a racist crime. I do not believe it was. The two police officers in question were from two different minorities and as far as I know, the perpetrator wanted to targeted police officers regardless of their race/ethnicity.

 

Having said that, as I stated earlier, the root of the issue are the two cases I previously mentioned where race seem to be a huge factor in the public eye and media and even in those cases, does not mean there were racist crimes or if any crimes were committed at all.

 

I have a big problem when we label any crime as "racist" every single time there is a white and a black or any other ethnicity involved. This does NOT mean, minorities are not racist. Of course, they can be BUT in this particular case, I believe it was a man who specifically wanted to target cops and it seems to me that their race was irrelevant for the killer.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is important when we erroneously state that this was a racist crime. I do not believe it was. The two police officers in question were from two different minorities and as far as I know, the perpetrator wanted to targeted police officers regardless of their race/ethnicity.

 

Having said that, as I stated earlier, the root of the issue are the two cases I previously mentioned where race seem to be a huge factor in the public eye and media and even in those cases, does not mean there were racist crimes or if any crimes were committed at all.

 

I have a big problem when we label any crime as "racist" every single time there is a white and a black or any other ethnicity involved. This does NOT mean, minorities are not racist. Of course, they can be BUT in this particular case, I believe it was a man who specifically wanted to target cops and it seems to me that their race was irrelevant for the killer.

The ferguson story where the officer shot the young black man...media has attempted and succeeded to make him sound like a racist. What's interesting is you don't hear about what officer Wilson was doing prior to the incident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

In poor taste, but I'm not seeing the "racist" bit (unless you refer to the "badder than old King Kong" line, which is taken directly from the Jim Croce song being parodied).

 

A national story about an improvised song in front of a few dozen old guys at an Elks Lodge?  Methinks the real outrage is that someone dared to point out that Michael Brown was a bad egg; and was witless enough to make sure that the comments could be tied back to his real-life identity.

 

 

Unfortunate; but let's not pretend that every news clip that is inconvenient for our side is ipso facto doctored.  The Daily Beast has separate footage of a chant of "What do we want?  Dead Cops!  When do we want it?  Now!!!"; and these were the morons to whom DeBlazio gave a rhetorical pat on the head.

 

I shared those articles to show the difference between how Eric Garner's daughter response, and these particular cops response....who is promoting hate here?  Everyone wants to blame the BLM people, but the same people are very reluctant to admit any wrong doing on their side...Fox and these police officers...  

I didn't say or even imply that every news clip is doctored.  I'm just pointing out that you can't believe everything you see or read.  I was aware the media "spins" things, but I didn't realize they would blatantly lie to enforce their side of the story.  I guess if you can't get the facts you need to promote your opinion, you just create them.  Or at least Fox does . . .

 

 

 

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that no one is "fanning the flames of hate against police"? Do you seriously believe this? Do you honestly need links to media outlets that demostrate that such people exist?

 

You are already on record as stating that you believe that those who encourage such hatred are not morally culpable for the murder of police officers. This looks to be the next logical step in your progression: From stating that such hate-mongers are not culpable to stating that they don't even exist.

 

Again, I don't know what to make of this. Media outlets have been sensationalizing and twisting facts to suit their narratives for many years. Typically, it's done by the Left, but I haven't noticed you hollering about that. I wonder why not?

 

 

Vort, are you intentionally misunderstanding me?  By posting the article about Fox, I"m saying that THEY are fanning the flames of hatred between the two sides--by manufacturing a LIE.  Apparently you are ok with that?  

 

The shooter acted on his own, because he was mentally ill, and because he hated cops.  As PC said, black people have a long history of not trusting long enforcement.  The shooter didn't need any encouragement in that department.  

I am not a Liberal (not a Conservative either)...I don't understand the need people have to make everything political.  To me this is not about political lines.  And I would have complained about either side blatantly twisting the facts if I had been aware of it.  I don't recall ever seeing a media outlet admit they LIED. Can we stay focused on the current topic please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is important when we erroneously state that this was a racist crime. I do not believe it was. The two police officers in question were from two different minorities and as far as I know, the perpetrator wanted to targeted police officers regardless of their race/ethnicity.

 

Having said that, as I stated earlier, the root of the issue are the two cases I previously mentioned where race seem to be a huge factor in the public eye and media and even in those cases, does not mean there were racist crimes or if any crimes were committed at all.

 

I have a big problem when we label any crime as "racist" every single time there is a white and a black or any other ethnicity involved. This does NOT mean, minorities are not racist. Of course, they can be BUT in this particular case, I believe it was a man who specifically wanted to target cops and it seems to me that their race was irrelevant for the killer.

 

Very well-stated.  Would that certain activists would take incidents of white-on-minority violence on the same case-by-case basis that we agree minority-on-minority or minority-on-white incidents deserve. 

 

I shared those articles to show the difference between how Eric Garner's daughter response, and these particular cops response....who is promoting hate here?  Everyone wants to blame the BLM people, but the same people are very reluctant to admit any wrong doing on their side...Fox and these police officers... 

 

I'd like to think that no one here is so narrow-minded as to think that any one side has a monopoly on bad behavior.  But I thought it was very interesting how quickly a retired cop signing a stupid ditty about how Michael Brown was a bad guy (which--quite frankly--he was), was suddenly tarred with the label raaaaaaaaacist before a nationwide audience--and to his stupid performance before dozens, is attributed the same degree of harm that demonstrably did come from impolitic statements that led to the deaths of two cops a couple of days ago.

 

 

I didn't say or even imply that every news clip is doctored.  I'm just pointing out that you can't believe everything you see or read.  I was aware the media "spins" things, but I didn't realize they would blatantly lie to enforce their side of the story.  I guess if you can't get the facts you need to promote your opinion, you just create them.  Or at least Fox does . . .

 

Oh, at minimum it's so slipshod as to be journalistic malpractice; and someone should be fired over it (I can see how someone in the cutting room could hear "'til" and interpret it as "so"--the chanter's enunciation left much to be desired--though the reporter definitely should have corrected this and there's no excuse for having failed to do so).  If you took the perpetrator of every crime that has been committed in the last sixty days (assault, theft, vandalism, and now, murder), how many of those perps will have even heard of this random schmuck at the Elks Lodge?  And how many of those same perps will have heard of Michael Brown and Ben Crump, and will be familiar with the phrase "burn this ***** down"?

 

But in point of fact it was a local Fox network affiliate.  To attempt to associate it with Fox News is rather like taking a bad piece done by KSL here in Salt Lake, and attributing it to MSNBC.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When cops are getting grenade launchers,

 

 

I have to laugh at this complaint.  There are no 40mm explosive rounds that come with that grenade launcher.  They are used to deploy chemical munitions and less lethal (bean bag rounds etc.)  At least get your facts straight on what the purpose of the tool is.

 

 

mraps

 

 

Excellent tool.  We used ours one night on a suicidal male.  We got the call that a male was suicidal, had a gun and was down a lane in a large field.  Our officer pulled down the road to check on him.  As soon as he arrived behind the male in his car, a shot was fired.  Our officer backed out of there pretty fast, unsure of whether he was the target or the male had shot himself or at something else.  There was no cover and no way to safely approach the vehicle.  We used an armored vehicle to drive up to his car to check the male's status.

 

 

ak-47s,

 

 

You're confused.  We don't use AK-47's.

 

flak jackets

 

 

We've been wearing body armor for decades. The first officer shot while wearing body armor was in 1972.  Since that time over 3000 documented saves of officer lives since that time.  What's the problem?  You prefer dead cops?

 

 

 

 

(I can't think of an incident that requires a no-knock raid at 1am)

 

 

I can.  Lots of them.  How about someone who has killed multiple people, is armed and has continued to threaten to kill more people?  How about that person gets located in a home somewhere.  Think we should just go up and knock on the door and ask him to surrender?  I'm going with the surprise option of a no knock search warrant and the utilization of tools that protect the officer.

 

 

 

IMO cops should not have access to any weaponry that a regular private citizen can not get access to.  

 

 

 

You have access to the same weapons that I do.

 

Someone else commented on automatic weapons in the hands of patrol officers.  We don't have automatic weapons.  The only people who do are on SWAT.  You can own a fully automatic weapon just as easily as I can.  I just don't have the money to get the gun or permits for them.  Some people do.  I'm not sure I would buy one even if I had the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can.  Lots of them.  How about someone who has killed multiple people, is armed and has continued to threaten to kill more people?  How about that person gets located in a home somewhere.  Think we should just go up and knock on the door and ask him to surrender?  I'm going with the surprise option of a no knock search warrant and the utilization of tools that protect the officer.

 

Brother, you're not going to get a lot of traction with that argument.  When you have cases like this:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-injured-swat-team-flash-bang-grenade-headed-home-article-1.1850982

 

It's very difficult to see why "tools that protect the officer" (your words) are more important than avoiding this sort of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that was a bad op.  Someone's head should roll for that.  No doubt about it.  There should not have ever been a question of who was going to be financially responsible for that.

 

Our team has never made a mistake like that.  Ever.

 

 

 

How about this one.  

 

http://www.odmp.org/officer/628-deputy-sheriff-michael-scott-welcker

 

A no knock would have prevented Deputy Welcker's death.  I can show more incidents like this than you can of that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, if your arguments defending things like no knock warrants are going to be based solely on what's best for the officers, then you're not going to be very successful in convincing people that it's perfectly okay to do this stuff.  Ever. 

 

It isn't that we don't value the safety of cops.  We do.  We don't want to see officers killed or hurt in the line of duty.  That said, when we feel like in any conflict between that and peoples' rights, peoples' rights should come first.  This is why cops got so much hero worship after 9/11.  It's because those guys were sacrificing themselves trying to save civilians.  This is what they were expected to do, of course, same as the firefighters who also got their recognition.

 

Now, what we're hearing is that unarmed people are getting killed because "an officer was afraid for his safety."  Apparently if I am carrying a BB gun in Wal-Mart that I was planning to buy, I might just get shot.

 

If a cop is putting his safety before an unarmed person's life, he's no hero.  Full stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh at this complaint.  There are no 40mm explosive rounds that come with that grenade launcher.  They are used to deploy chemical munitions and less lethal (bean bag rounds etc.)  At least get your facts straight on what the purpose of the tool is.

 

 

You can laugh all day, but your response is exactly why I have absolutely 0 respect for thug cops today.  You bring a holier than thou, mightier than thou attitude that I find despicable and repulsive. You and your ilk believe you are better than your fellow citizen. Rather than thinking, hmm, I can see why the citizens that I am supposed to serve and protect could be upset at this you come up with a "ah, I laugh at your stupid complaints attitude".  I've got no use for you.

 

You want to gain the respect of people back, take a long look in the mirror and the attitude you bring.

 

There is 0 reason period for a grenade launcher, I don't care if it's chemical munitions or bean bags, but those weapons are not weapons to catch criminals, they are weapons to subdue the populace.

 

They are the weapons used for a military lock-down of a major city like what happened in Boston. And that is not the purpose of police.  You are just as brainwashed as most of the cops who believe you are in a "warzone" and nothing is too much to protect your life . . .instead of realizing that nothing is too much to protect liberties rather than destroy them.

 

Did you ever see the movie "The Siege" made in 1998 that was portraying a horrible future where a the military, police, etc. were used in inappropriate ways.  Congratulations it isn't a movie anymore, that is real life and it can happen.

 

As for your "reasons" for no-knocks . . .exactly how many situations like that occur? And even when they do occur, protecting the innocent at the expense of letting the guilty go is the fundamental basis of law in this country . . .you know the whole innocent until proven guilty.  I'd rather let a murder go and find him another time rather than have you go into the wrong house guns blazing all John Wayne and kill an innocent citizen. Or have you forgotten that you serve the citizens of this country?

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerome:

 

I agree with a lot of what you say mirkwood. But no knocks, never. This is one case where even if it does save lives, it's not worth it.

 

 

 

As I already said, that was a bad op.  No argument at all.  The individual(s) responsible for the scout on that op are the ones who should bear the consequences, not the tactic itself.  We've taken criminals into custody that were prepared to shoot it out with us, but the surprise of the no knock took that away from them.  Taking the criminal into custody instead of killing them is the desired result.  We would rather not have to shoot someone. 

 

We will have to agree to disagree on no knocks.

 

 

Unixknight:

 

Dude, if your arguments defending things like no knock warrants are going to be based solely on what's best for the officers, then you're not going to be very successful in convincing people that it's perfectly okay to do this stuff.  Ever. 

 

 

 

As I told Jerome, we will have to agree to disagree on no knocks. You won’t convince me, I won’t convince you.

 

 

Unixknight:

 

It isn't that we don't value the safety of cops.  We do.  We don't want to see officers killed or hurt in the line of duty.  That said, when we feel like in any conflict between that and peoples' rights, peoples' rights should come first.  This is why cops got so much hero worship after 9/11.  It's because those guys were sacrificing themselves trying to save civilians.  This is what they were expected to do, of course, same as the firefighters who also got their recognition.

 

 

This is a separate issue (Constitutional rights) from no knock warrants and one we don’t disagree on.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unixknight:

Now what we're hearing is that unarmed people are getting killed because "an officer was afraid for his safety."  Apparently if I am carrying a BB gun in Wal-Mart that I was planning to buy, I might just get shot.

 

 

 

This issue is completely different than no knock warrants.  This is an issue of threat assessment.  You may not like it, but if you point something at an officer that looks like a gun, you are probably going to be shot.  I’ll post some pics below…you figure out which is real and which isn’t.

 

pink_zpsfc51f8cd.jpg

 

090512_real_fake_gun_comparision_zpsb5a6

 

shotguninsidesupersoaker_zps3e009f20.jpg

 

thUGJL8MHG_zps2b4afd86.jpg

 

 

replica-vs-firearm_zpsb9a1f387.jpg

 

 

airsoft-gun-comparison-web-graphic_zps1a

 

 

BBGunMeme_zps2af46efd.png

 

You tell me which are real and which are fake.  You get to make that decision on the streets in a fraction of a second.

 

 

 

 

Yjacket:

 

You can laugh all day, but your response is exactly why I have absolutely 0 respect for thug cops today.  You bring a holier than thou, mightier than thou attitude that I find despicable and repulsive. You and your ilk believe you are better than your fellow citizen. Rather than thinking, hmm, I can see why the citizens that I am supposed to serve and protect could be upset at this you come up with a "ah, I laugh at your stupid complaints attitude".  I've got no use for you.

 

 

Yes, your  willful ignorance is laughable. Go back to reading infowars.com, I’m sure it will make you feel better about your ignorance.

 

 

want to gain the respect of people back, take a long look in the mirror and the attitude you bring.

 

 

 

Looked in your own mirror lately? 

 

thL0SOXCLZ_zps227962d3.jpg

 

 

There is 0 reason period for a grenade launcher, I don't care if it's chemical munitions or bean bags, but those weapons are not weapons to catch criminals, they are weapons to subdue the populace.

 

They are the weapons used for a military lock-down of a major city like what happened in Boston. And that is not the purpose of police.  You are just as brainwashed as most of the cops who believe you are in a "warzone" and nothing is too much to protect your life . . .instead of realizing that nothing is too much to protect liberties rather than destroy them.

 

Did you ever see the movie "The Siege" made in 1998 that was portraying a horrible future where a the military, police, etc. were used in inappropriate ways.  Congratulations it isn't a movie anymore, that is real life and it can happen.

 

 

I've already explained the valid use of these tools.  Your willful ignorance should be  stunning.  Sadly it is not.  Again, enjoy perusing sites like infowars, Alex will help mold your paradigm.

 

 

As for your "reasons" for no-knocks . . .exactly how many situations like that occur? And even when they do occur, protecting the innocent at the expense of letting the guilty go is the fundamental basis of law in this country . . .you know the whole innocent until proven guilty.  I'd rather let a murder go and find him another time rather than have you go into the wrong house guns blazing all John Wayne and kill an innocent citizen. Or have you forgotten that you serve the citizens of this country?

 

 

More then you realize, but I don’t mind you being unaware of that and won’t hold that against you and cut you some slack on this one.  Very few people outside the law enforcement community have any clue what is going on.  You help prove that point. 

 

I’ve already addressed the wrong house issue.  Discussing issues like this with you in other threads has already proven to be like talking to a drunk.  You can’t reason with a drunk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is completely different than no knock warrants.  This is an issue of threat assessment.  You may not like it, but if you point something at an officer that looks like a gun, you are probably going to be shot.

 

I've said nothing about people pointing things at cops.

 

This guy didn't point anything at the officers:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/crawford-family-decision-to-not-indict-officer-incomprehensible/28240330

 

And this guy had no gun at all:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/23/houston-grand-jury-clears-police-officer-jordan-baker/20818025/

 

Google the phrase "unarmed man killed by police" You'll get more hits than you can read in a week.  These are not isolated incidents nor are they corner cases.  This is a problem, and the more apologists make excuses, the more we're going to see it.  Cops have authority and equipment to do their job, and they need to be held to a high standard to be worthy of that authority.  I don't know if the solution is better training, better screening of candidates, better non-lethal equipment or what.  But something has to be done or this is going to get worse, not better.

 

Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said nothing about people pointing things at cops.

 

This guy didn't point anything at the officers:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/crawford-family-decision-to-not-indict-officer-incomprehensible/28240330

 

Some one called 911 because someone was waving a rifle around. The cops say they told him to put it down and he didn't. The second the guy put his hand into his waistband and began charging.

Sorry but when those are the cases you have to bring up, it tells me you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel and there isn't a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share