(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: I understand that you are special, and have to be handled differently, so I'll lay it out specially for you, snowflake.
The original call to police said a man had threatened another man with a gun.
When police arrive, a man who refuses to comply with police and has a Bloods tattoo on the side of his head decides to wrestle with police. And he had a gun.
The police have not confirmed he had a gun, but a witness did, and the original police call said a gun was involved.
A witness also confirmed that he did not reach for his gun.
Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.
Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.
Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?
(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: The details or participants of this one don't matter.
The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.
I don't believe it is.
The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.
These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.
That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.
If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.
I have an average career.
My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.
Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.
One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.
If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.
Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?
Ok, you think the primary mission of police, firefighters, and soldiers is their personal safety.
Those guys who got killed at Normandy failed spectacularly I guess.
(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: The details or participants of this one don't matter.
The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.
I don't believe it is.
The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.
These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.
That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.
If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.
I have an average career.
My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.
Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.
One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.
If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.
Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?
Ok, you think the primary mission of police, firefighters, and soldiers is their personal safety.
Those guys who got killed at Normandy failed spectacularly I guess.
(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: The details or participants of this one don't matter.
The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.
I don't believe it is.
The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.
These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.
That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.
If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.
I have an average career.
My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.
Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.
One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.
If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.
Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?
Ok, you think the primary mission of police, firefighters, and soldiers is their personal safety.
Those guys who got killed at Normandy failed spectacularly I guess.
Different strokes.
Them getting home safe a top concern. Every department. All day long.
I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
Until a cell phone or CCTV or vest camera (which fell off during the scrum, of course) captures these full scenes, we'll again be left with "the cop said, the witness said, the store clerk said, etc." All giving different accounts.
Friends and relatives will paint the picture of an angel who'd never, ever hurt a fly, much less a cop. Meanwhile some armchair quarterbacks/Internet warriors will paint him guilty for just being a "thug" and buy the policeman's account wholesale. We've seen this play out countless times before.
Where's the truth? We'll never really know.
This one came closest to real damning footage, but the key areas were hidden from view. And it's those "hidden" areas that will be the battle. So let the games begin.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
(07-06-2016 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: The details or participants of this one don't matter.
The real issue is our style and culture of policing and whether it is accomplishing its mission.
I don't believe it is.
The obsession with officer safety results in aggressive policing policies, training, and strategies that treats every citizen as an immediate potential threat to an officer's life.
These policies and strategies naturally result in an us/them situation on both sides and the destruction of public support and cooperation and a sense that police are an occupying force.
That ain't good...and it ain't sustainable.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.
If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.
I have an average career.
My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.
Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.
One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.
If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.
Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?
Ok, you think the primary mission of police, firefighters, and soldiers is their personal safety.
Those guys who got killed at Normandy failed spectacularly I guess.
Different strokes.
Yes because none of them accomplish the mission at hand by getting hurt or killed trying to accomplish it. Is there risk involved in all three occupations? Certainly, but the instant you aren't worrying about your personal safety you become a liability to everybody around you.
(07-06-2016 01:53 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: What do you do for a living? Seriously, I doubt whether we come home or not after a shift crosses our minds very often.
If they guy had a gun illegally concealed on his person, they 100% did the right thing in taking him down. What happened after that is fact dependent.
I have an average career.
My uncle was a Fort Worth policeman for 30 years. My dad was a reserve officer. I have several friends who are police officers.
Not sure that matters though because I tend to look at it as an issue of public policy instead of emotionally anyway.
One of the police officers I know told me that the primary mission was that all of them make it home at the end of the day. I respectfully disagreed.
If your primary mission is personal safety, then do not become a police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc.
Gonna have to mostly disagree with you on this one.
Police have no duty to protect you: Warren v. District of Columbia
Soldier: Isn't the way to win a battle by killing more of them then they kill of you? Therefore the primary goal would be not dying...i.e. personal safety.
Firefighter: So you're saying a firefighter should risk their personal safety to save a burning, unoccupied building?
Ok, you think the primary mission of police, firefighters, and soldiers is their personal safety.
Those guys who got killed at Normandy failed spectacularly I guess.
Different strokes.
Them getting home safe a top concern. Every department. All day long.
Was in the USMC as well.
Then the best way to do that is resign and go cower in the basement.
What a pansy country we have become.
This is probably why everyone is so terrified to put boots on the ground and take out these genocidal maniacs in Syria. A soldier might get hurt.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.
The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.
The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.
If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.
The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.
Agree 100% but to a point. Babies still need daddy and mama still wants hubby.
War is not the same. And now that I think of it even there the people in charge are not to send their men into suicide missions like what was done in Sicily at the Rapido River battle.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.
The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.
The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.
If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.
Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.
The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.
The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.
If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.
Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.
Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.
(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?
And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.
That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.
The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.
The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.
If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.
I respect your opinion but simply take a different view. I'll try and expand using your examples.
Quote:D-Day: My perspective is that we as a force needed to invade France. One of the things that in my mind points to the high importance of personal safety which would lead to unit success included holding General Patton on the shores of England as a decoy with a giant fake army.
The allied military had a completely different culture especially when compared to say the Japanese. That is a great example of a force who's primary focus is certainly not personal safety but instead personal sacrifice.
If the norm was personal sacrifice instead of personal safety, I'd argue there would be no Medal of Honor recipients, as that level of sacrifice....going "above and beyond", is expected vs. lauded.
I will admit that in my opinion, soldiering is probably the weakest tentpole in my argument. The military is different from our civilian services mentioned below. We purposefully go to places where they want to kill us....but we do emphasize personal safety by fighting as unfairly as possible. The scene from Capt. Phillips when 3 Navy ships roll up on 4 nearly illiterate Somali pirates holding 1 single citizen shows how important this country views the individual.
Quote:Police: I agree that public safety is the primary mission of the police. However, I disagree that accomplishing that requires a lack of personal safety focus. The main job of the police is not to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole....usually through investigating crimes after the fact.
Quote:Firefighter: Maybe this one is a bit more personal for me as I have a family member who is in the ranks. As another said...and what I remember 2nd most from Baywatch...you can't help others if you're hurt. Thus the technique of putting the patient between you and the dangerous object the ocean is pushing you into. FFs do everything they can safely do based on their training and experience to safely put out fires and render aid. If the threat raises higher than they are comfortable with, the extra risk doesn't make sense.
With all of these examples in our society, going above and beyond is the exception. While I understand and respect that those choosing these fields are exposed to more dangerous situations, they are also equipped with training and equipment to try and level out the risk vs. safety balancing act. They can go farther up the risk ladder than Joe Schmoe can in certain situations based on their expertise....but at some point it becomes a personal choice to climb higher than is required, and we rightly honor those that do.
