Article: Rise of the Warrior Cop

[Combat Auto 174]

Based on the fact the police found evidence of an unlawful entry what would you have done?

What are you freakin-kidding!...They could have easily retreated...Why shoot the freaking dogs man...You and I both know the answer to that.

 

Great, break into some innocent bystandar's house, shoot their dogs, throw the people on the ground, drag um, cuff em. -All in a day's work.

 

Another case of Cops-Gone-Wild...A Merry Band of Bungelers.

[Combat Auto 174]

What if the poor SOB Innocent bystander had a gun on his nightstand like many here do...Grab it out of natural insticts - the Cops would have blown him away...OOOOOOOooooppppppppppssssssssss! -All in a days work!

 

It could happen to anyone of us, and is one of the reasons PD precesses, M&Ps, and training should be talked about (alot).

[GRIZ 3,369]

What are you freakin-kidding!...They could have easily retreated...Why shoot the freaking dogs man...You and I both know the answer to that.

 

Great, break into some innocent bystandar's house, shoot their dogs, throw the people on the ground, drag um, cuff em. -All in a day's work.

 

Another case of Cops-Gone-Wild...A Merry Band of Bungelers.

So you're saying you don't have a problem with the cops entering the house? But you do with them shooting the dogs and cuffing the residents? We still don't have all the info why the police went to the house to begin with.

 

My point is most people who are critical of police actions don't really have an complete answer to what the police should have done.

 

FWIW, if you leave out the info that led the police to the house, I would have handled it differently. But that's the problem with dealing "what if" scenarios. One additional detail changes the total perspective on the situation.

 

Leave out the dogs and if the police found a burglar hiding in the bed making believe he was the resident (I've seen that done) and this would have been good police work that probably wouldn't make the news.

[Combat Auto 174]

So you're saying you don't have a problem with the cops entering the house? But you do with them shooting the dogs and cuffing the residents? We still don't have all the info why the police went to the house to begin with.

 

My point is most people who are critical of police actions don't really have an complete answer to what the police should have done.

 

FWIW, if you leave out the info that led the police to the house, I would have handled it differently. But that's the problem with dealing "what if" scenarios. One additional detail changes the total perspective on the situation.

 

Leave out the dogs and if the police found a burglar hiding in the bed making believe he was the resident (I've seen that done) and this would have been good police work that probably wouldn't make the news.

I honestly am not following your points especially your first paragraph as I do have a problem with their entry...My first post did stipulate that (if) the article is "true" if that helps...If it is true information I have a problem with what the Cops did on all points:

Breaking/Entry without a warrent

Murdering the dog(s)

Excessive force

Beating on the inocent bystandars

And just being Stupid at best (or intentionally vicious at worst).

 

As mentioned above, if the young-man had a HD weopon, we might be talking about a Cop shooting a person also.

 

With Cops like this running around, I'd take my chances without them.

[Combat Auto 174]

I honestly am not following your points especially your first paragraph as I do have a problem with their entry...My first post did stipulate that (if) the article is "true" if that helps...If it is true information I have a problem with what the Cops did on all points:

Breaking/Entry without a warrent

Murdering the dog(s)

Excessive force

Beating on the inocent bystandars

And just being Stupid at best (or intentionally vicious at worst).

 

As mentioned above, if the young-man had a HD weopon, we might be talking about a Cop shooting a person also.

 

With Cops like this running around, I'd take my chances without them.

I mean seriously, would you want these guys comming to your house in the middle of the night?

[W2MC 1,699]

What if the poor SOB Innocent bystander had a gun on his nightstand like many here do...Grab it out of natural insticts - the Cops would have blown him away...OOOOOOOooooppppppppppssssssssss! -All in a days work!

 

It could happen to anyone of us, and is one of the reasons PD precesses, M&Ps, and training should be talked about (alot).

 

The reverse of this actually happened 10-20 years ago.  I am trying to remember the town...(was it Burlington?)  I am sure more than just I remember this happening.

 

Police enter the house under suspicion of a burglary...and do a silent search.  Son of the homeowner was asleep upstairs and was awoken to sounds of them searching the house (and NOT announcing their presence).  Son arms himself with a .25 and shoots first officer when they climb the stairs...If I remember it right, the .25 hit the officer in the badge and was deflected. I do not remember if they returned fire; however I do remember the son was not injured.

 

No charges were filed, as the officers acknowledged they were in the wrong...they should have announced themselves.

 

Does anyone else remember this?

[pjd832 146]

I agree 110% that the fawn story is absolutely rediculous and a waste of resources. It appears to be a completely inappropriate use of authority.

But you aren't really comparing the euthanizing of a fawn with the killing of a child are you?

Not per se....I guess it was a bad comparison but it was the first thing I thought of lol .... More so that the people assigned to protect/look out for best interests of ..... Would simply "raid" and euthanize a healthy fawn that had been found and was being cared for until it could be turned over to the wildlife place mentioned.....

[bravozulu14 0]

Sure it could work, I know plenty of non-cops that could capably handle parts of active shooter response.

But first a few issues that need to be planned for:

 

Thanks for the response High Exposure.  It would seem the majority of those questions are already being handled by law abiding CCW and the local stand your ground/castle doctrine laws everywhere in the country.  The bevy of active shooter situations that didn't turn into "mass killings" (4+ as defined by the gov) were usually stopped by either a CCW or an off duty LEO.  The point was by having armed school staff (aka: like Utah), or movie patrons, etc is you 1. provide a massive deterrent by removing the fish/barrel scenario and 2. have a deadly response on the ground at the scene the second the shooting starts. 

 

I'm not saying we need to get rid of these teams completely, not in the least, because there may well come a day when a Beslan comes to America and there is a coordinated effort by a large team of active shooters/terrorists, but a large majority of mass shootings, I believe, would be stopped/deterred by having law abiding, background checked, trained CCWs allowed to carry legally everywhere they went.

[High Exposure 5,673]

You do realize that there aren't Cops out there divided into "teams" whose job it is to respond to these instances right? The "team" is just a term used for the first 2-4 Officers (they could be from any division - Patrol, Detective, admin, traffic, SRO, etc...) that arrive on scene, "team up", and enter the building hunting for the bad guy. All Officers are trained to the same standard in how to respond so whoever is working can respond with whomever else is working, regardless of what shift or even what Agency they work for.

 

You may also have a few Cops trained to a slightly higher standard in order to assume tactical command of an ad-hoc team in the event of an AS situation. They will become the de-facto "team" leader regardless of rank. But they also aren't assigned to any organized "team" and the extra training is usually the result of a second or third hat that are in addition to their regular job responsibilities according to their assigned positions.

 

Officers that receive Active Shooter training are not trained in hostage rescue, high-risk warrant service, or any SWAT related work. Their only training is how to move to the sounds of guns as quickly as possible while maintaing some semblance of safety via tactics and neutralize the threat appropriately.

 

 

Also, on another note, I see a lot of reference to Police as "Peace Officers". Being a "Peace Officer" is only one small facet of our jobs, one that is used when dealing with Civil matters (as opposed to criminal matters which is what we are mandated to and permitted to handle). We are not allowed to become involved in strictly civil matters - evictions, landlord tenant disputes, custody issues, civil court orders, small claims stuff - but if requested we can standby as "Peace officers" to ensure that no crimes are committed while the situation is handled by the proper authorities, or simply stand by as witnesses while a civil matter is rectfied by agreeing parties to ensure nothing gets out of hand. It is a typically misunderstood part of LE work and being a "Peace Officer" or Officer of the Peace should not be confused with being a first responder (responding to assist citizen and first aid calls) or our main job of enforcing the laws that are in place.

[Kaiser7 33]

Old Article, but still.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/71096/

I see stories every day regarding police abusing authority, the most common of which is shooting animals. Going back to the story people were talking about earlier where the police snuck in under the claim that there was suspicion of "Breaking and Entering", one must ask why they had to shoot the dogs, particularly when they had no evidence to support the notion that the dogs didn't belong to the owners.

And before anyone gets on me for LEO bashing, I have two thigns to say. First off, when is the last time you've seen a cop pull another cop over for breaking traffic laws (such as speeding, or turning on their lights just to pass through a red-light.) or have another cop speak out against one who has abused his authority?

Secondly, I am afraid of police. That's not right, I've never done anything wrong, but considering recent evidence where cops were caught planting cocaine in a legal marijuana dispensary, that's a sign that just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean they won't find something.

I wish that the police officer would return to what he once was. That noble pillar of the community who kept order, but did so with a smile, being kind and courteous to citizens 99% of the time, only being a hardass when the situation warranted it. You know, the Andy Griffith type of officer, one who you feel safe around. This is no longer the case.

[bravozulu14 0]

Thanks High Exposure, I wasn't aware of that.  I was operating under the notion that an "active shooter team" was SWAT, ESU or similar type teams.

[High Exposure 5,673]

That's a common mis-perception. Glad I could help.

[checko 180]

Old Article, but still.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/71096/

 

I see stories every day regarding police abusing authority, the most common of which is shooting animals. Going back to the story people were talking about earlier where the police snuck in under the claim that there was suspicion of "Breaking and Entering", one must ask why they had to shoot the dogs, particularly when they had no evidence to support the notion that the dogs didn't belong to the owners.

 

And before anyone gets on me for LEO bashing, I have two thigns to say. First off, when is the last time you've seen a cop pull another cop over for breaking traffic laws (such as speeding, or turning on their lights just to pass through a red-light.) or have another cop speak out against one who has abused his authority?

 

Secondly, I am afraid of police. That's not right, I've never done anything wrong, but considering recent evidence where cops were caught planting cocaine in a legal marijuana dispensary, that's a sign that just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean they won't find something.

 

I wish that the police officer would return to what he once was. That noble pillar of the community who kept order, but did so with a smile, being kind and courteous to citizens 99% of the time, only being a hardass when the situation warranted it. You know, the Andy Griffith type of officer, one who you feel safe around. This is no longer the case.

Staten Island Highway patrol are notorious for giving EVERYONE tickets, officer or not.  Commonly referred to as the Gestapo or Nazi's by my cop friends lol. 

 

I don't know about being afraid of police, that might be a bit strong. They absolutely need to be held accountable to a high standard. I've had (more than) my fair share of talks with local fuzz, mostly in NYC where they are much more prevalent.  I can only think of one occasion where the cop was truly just being a turd.  Long story short, he pulled me over, after cutting me off, to ticket my brother in the passenger seat for not wearing a seat belt.  My brother called him a dick out loud and the cop heard him.  

 

Any other situation I've had was my own doing.  Most have been friendly and even helpful.  One NJST checked out to make sure I was ok as I had my hazards on the side of 287 (I was falling asleep driving after doing an overnight at my job. Pulled over for a nap)  He asked if I was ok, said I did the right thing and told me to have a nice nap. 

 

As for the days of being Andy and Barney, I'm not sure where you've heard that.  All the stories I've heard in the old days, if you were jammed up by the po-po they gave you a little extra just so you'd remember not to do it again.  Today I can imagine how many cops have to look over their shoulder just making a legit arrest with 5 or 6 cell phones in his face.  I wish all the towns in the country were like Mayberry, but thats not the case. 

[Vlad G 345]

So apparently it isn't just silly civilians thinking the police forces are getting militarized, some of the ex-military thinks so too:

 

[Vlad G 345]

Oh, and this might be one of those times when the left and the right agree, you should check what the Huff Post commenters think about this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/how-to-roll-back-police-militarization_n_3749272.html

 

When you have the activist on the left and right and center say "huh there might be a problem", you need to start paying attention.

[blksheep 466]

So...because he doesn't want different agencies to look the same that's his argument?

[blksheep 466]

If the gear protects the officers I'm all for it. If that's the case then citizens shouldn't buy or own body armor because the will think they are in the military too and they shouldnt be able to protect themselves either.

[Vlad G 345]

It is telling that after 8 pages the argument I hear back is "well why not" or "nah, you are wrong".   Somehow I can't get through a simple fact: taxpayers of all political persuasions don't like it, ie: the people paying the bills.

 

I suppose I'll give up arguing about it, and we'll just watch the divide grow ever wider, and the local police departments further slip into being an arm of a federal government. 

 

Good luck to us all.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I give up on this. The arguments are stupid. Clothing? Really? Worry about real problems....not what cops are wearing

[Vlad G 345]

I give up on this. The arguments are stupid. Clothing? Really? Worry about real problems....not what cops are wearing

 

You mean real problems like these:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4FWpvhFGU#at=54

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/05/08/durham_police_constable_threatens_to_beat_up_man_and_plant_cocaine_on_him_video_shows.html

http://www.foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/baltimore-neighborhoods-look-private-security-21733.shtml#.UhD4Dj-YdOC

[SgtToadette 59]

I give up on this. The arguments are stupid. Clothing? Really? Worry about real problems....not what cops are wearing

 

I think the clothing thing is an apprehension that most people will let go of with some thought.

 

The more important issues seem to be no-knock entries on sloppy warrants, increasing number of departments "needing" APCs, abusive overrides of consent, and hostility to "smart-asses" who just so happen to know and understand their pesky rights.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Lets clear something up about the apc's and armored trucks. After 9/11 so much federal money is handed out and departments just had to apply for it. Who doesnt want cool new toys with somebody elses money. Most sit around and never get used. Buy new weapons, buy new cars and trucks, new equpt. The feds pay for a lot of it out of homeland security funds. Plus the change in uniforms is due to how much more equiptment we have to carry now. I have radiation pagers, masks, filters and other specialty equiptment in addition to my regular patrol gear.

[Vlad G 345]

Because the federal budget isn't payed by the same taxpayers. It isn't that we don't understand how it works, it is that we disagree with it.  All that extra gear, radiation detectors, masks, etc, getting much use out of it? Would that money be better spent on more training or a myriad of other things?

[SgtToadette 59]

Lets clear something up about the apc's and armored trucks. After 9/11 so much federal money is handed out and departments just had to apply for it. Who doesnt want cool new toys with somebody elses money.

 

It would seem, as Vlad argued, the American citizenry is largely taking issue with it. Thus the purpose of this conversation.

[BlueLineFish 615]

The problem is you guys dont think like your average person. Which is good. They are sheep. They see all this stuff and feel safe. Its all smoke and mirrors. Most people dont mind paying for what they think will keep them safe in their everyday life. I know most of this stuff means nothing. We are still as vulnerable as ever. Its just like overtime. People complain about police overtime but when something happens what do they want to see more of...a police presence.

Also..you only hear about the bad that happens. Why would you believe everything you hear when it comes to these so called bs warrants, police brutality and so forth. There are thousands of warrants served daily that you hear nothing about, hundreds of raids with no issues. Does police brutality happen l...yes but a lot of times you really dont know the back story or see what happened in the video leading up to the situation. Trust me. I have had an experience where claims where made and was on the hot seat for absolutely no reason. Talk about a shitty feeling.

[silverado427 10,819]

I treat people the way I want to be treated,  From the guy pumping my gas to the police !!!! 

[SgtToadette 59]

The problem is you guys dont think like your average person. Which is good. They are sheep. They see all this stuff and feel safe. Its all smoke and mirrors. Most people dont mind paying for what they think will keep them safe in their everyday life. I know most of this stuff means nothing. We are still as vulnerable as ever. Its just like overtime. People complain about police overtime but when something happens what do they want to see more of...a police presence.

Also..you only hear about the bad that happens. Why would you believe everything you hear when it comes to these so called bs warrants, police brutality and so forth. There are thousands of warrants served daily that you hear nothing about, hundreds of raids with no issues. Does police brutality happen l...yes but a lot of times you really dont know the back story or see what happened in the video leading up to the situation. Trust me. I have had an experience where claims where made and was on the hot seat for absolutely no reason. Talk about a shitty feeling.

 

Certainly in an age where anyone can record a video and instantly upload it to YouTube it's going to be easy to make isolated incidents look like the norm. There's no news like bad news and the fascination and enjoyment that people get with watching someone screw-up (see also: the rise of reality TV) would seem to indicate a disproportionate perception of the reality of police work.

 

However, I think having an attitude among police that by default defends the actions of other officers does enable the populace to grow so cynical. When clear cases of abuse get largely swept under the rug or receive superficial penalties it frustrates people. While you state that you've been on the hot seat because of a frivolous complaint, it would seem that the system worked in the end. I certainly don't think that weakening Internal Affairs is going to solve anything relevant to the topic here.

[Combat Auto 174]

You mean real problems like these:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4FWpvhFGU#at=54

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/05/08/durham_police_constable_threatens_to_beat_up_man_and_plant_cocaine_on_him_video_shows.html

http://www.foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/baltimore-neighborhoods-look-private-security-21733.shtml#.UhD4Dj-YdOC

In any walk of life, there are non-thinking "professionals" who follow process blindly without though, judgememt, or concern of consequences...This can be especillly true of people in orthority...I met many such people in the Navy many years ago, but it applies ubiquitously. Power currupts and all that (or at least makes you arrogant if you don't check yourself). -Of course when this applies to a profession of folks who carry a badge, a gun, and are the sworn agents of the State - you can see the problems develop...

 

I for one do not want any SWATS kicking in my door in the middle of the night, shooting my dogs, or handcuffing me...With that said, the vast majority of police operations are smooth operations...But because of the larger issue of a growing government, which leads to more curruption, waste, unethical behavior, along with the fact that police are the agents of this ever growing beast, it is very appropriate that we have this conversation.

 

And whatever you guys decide, please keep posting videos of Brooke Baldwin as part of the process - she is a real looker!

[Combat Auto 174]

Here is a perfect example (if it is true) of the need to use judgement.

 

http://findingjustice.org/down-syndrome-man-killed/

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I give up on this. The arguments are stupid. Clothing? Really? Worry about real problems....not what cops are wearing

The clothing wasn't his argument. If you listen carefully his argument was that DHS, or more broadly - the govt, is building out a quasi-military force on American soil for the purposes of containing it's citizens not for protecting them. I believe he brought up the clothes to demonstrate their goal of standardization and interchangeability.