In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Woodshermit...excellent question. Perhaps not a fair question because of numbers though. Actually I'd bet that there were more pilots killed in training accidents during that period of time than sailors killed on the rivers. Simple reason that there were more pilots flying on a daily basis around CONUS and EastPac OPAREAs and WESTLANT OPAREAs than a relatively few brown water sailors running up and down the rivers in VietNam. Beach
It's a message board, morty, there are as many serious questions as there are serious people here. The answers are proportionate. We are not what we seem, how many times does that have to be iterated? You, for instance, enjoy agitating simply to get a response--a flasher, as it were. Most people are embarrassed for people like that, I know I am.
quote:deadmonkey - I feel your pain. Check out the 'cop fired' thread. I must admit, the response from the person with leo background is thoughtful, insightful, and very civil, but it contains the same basic line: you're not a cop, you don't understand.
So, as civilians, we should have nothing to say about police policy? People with guns and a badge in our community and we have no input?
Whoa Familyguy, did you just take a shot at me. About what I said in Cop Fired.
quote:Whoa Familyguy, did you just take a shot at me. About what I said in Cop Fired.
jc_howard, I dont think he took a shot at you (could be wrong), what I think he means and I have been around Police all my life, my mothers brother was a cop and my cousin was Chief of Police here in Cocoa beach. I also have several friends who are in Law enforcement so I think I can speak to this subject.
I think he meant that a lot of Law enforcement people, not all but a large part of them have the attitude that if you arent one of them then you cant possible understand the job or have any input as to how they perform their duties.
To some extent they may be right on that, however since the job of Law enforcement is to "SERVE and PROTECT" the public (us civies) and we(the taxpayers) pay the salaries we do in fact have both the right and obligation to have input on how Law Enforcement does their job.
LAw Enforcment is not a military orginization (though some would disagree) it is a function of local/state and federal government which is there to provide for the public(remember that phrase "public")good, just like fire and ambulance services.
The difference is that Law enforcement is the only one of those functions that has the power to suspend an individuals civil liberties(read: detention and/or arrest) or to use deadly force. As such they should be held to not only higher standards than the rest but should also be subject to tighter control and review of their actions than other orginizations. With greater power comes greater responsibility and greater need for stricter control and reivew.
A portion of Law Enforcement tends to see any effort by civilians(government or just plain JOHN DOE) to restrict/review or question any decision/action by them as an interference in their jobs. On the contrary it is a necessary evil and one which in my opnion should be more widespread and thourough in its application. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With politicians and other "elected" servants of the public(there's that word again) we can vote them out of office or even impeach them
if they step over the line or fail to perform in the best interest of the public. If law enforcement is policing itself then what recourse does the public have?
Now, before you or other LEO's get you panties in a wad let me say I wouldnt have your jobs for all the tea in china. 99.9% of you are overworked,underpaid,underappreciated and have one of the most stressful and dangerous jobs in the world and I admire and thank you for that.
I am just saying that any group of individuals that has the kind of power that LEO's have should be subject to review by the people that they are sworn to serve.
JuJu(who is probably going to be hammered on this one)
I totally understand it going to happen and I can deal with that, BUT some people just to conclusions immediately and are very rude in their responses. I don't see a call for that on here. Opinions are one thing, rudeness is another.
NRA Life Member ---"A pocket knife, a clean hankey, and a pistol... things I can use." - Ted Nugent
Response to: ElMuertoMonkey's statement(s)
[:)]"PROBABLY"[:)]
With the caveat; The world would be a dull place without people, 'who are legends in their mind'[:0]
You speak up, you take flak....woops, "INCOMING"[xx(]
First I would never hammer you on your opinion. We all have them and everyone should be allowed to express them, just what a forum is about. There are two issues here. One if you were to read my comments on the article "Cop Fired" I don't think I ever said quote:"but it contains the same basic line: you're not a cop, you don't understand".
What I did say was walk a mile in a LEO shoes and then you may see it a little different, plus I was trying to offer some insight from a LEO point of view. I had no problem with what had happened (the cop being fired), these things happen, I just don't agree with a lot of comments about double standards.
The second problem I had was that Familyguy didn't say that in his response in the "Cop Fired" article but here where I might not see it. Say it to me; I am one who loves discussions and other opinions. Plus as Dennis Miller once said "this is my opinion I could be wrong". I could be.
Now I hope you are up for a little friendly debate. I will disagree with you about Law Enforcement not being a "military organization". Law Enforcement is a Para-military organization. It is run just like the military. It is run by the same hierarchy you have in the military. You have a chief (a general) who runs a group of people who goes out and protects and serves, just like the military. We have rules and regulations just like the military and the military polices itself in military trials where the public (oh and we do pay for our military service) does not have any impute on what the outcome is. Let me give you an example, the Col (not sure of his rank) who was just court-martialed for using an un-orthodox interrogation method to acquire information about an ambush against his troops. Most of the public when they (me included) hear about this wanted to promote this officer for doing what was necessary to save his troops in time of war. A military court tried him and it that was the way it should have been.
The police departments need to police its department. I will agree with you every day of the week that there are going to be corrupt departments that end up having to have a civilian committee come in and clean house but you do not hear about that as much as you use to. Believe me the press loves a corrupt police story; it is hard to hid your dirty laundry anymore. At my department you were "tired" before a law enforcement panel and discipline was dealt. If you disagreed with the outcome you could grieve it. The finial trial you went up against had one police representative, a one neutral civilian and you got to choose the third person. Another police officer or another civilian, your choice. Most of our officers when it would get to this point would have his attorney present. Now if you are charged with a criminal charge you are tried by your peers or public, you and I (now retired).
I will also not agree with you about LEO should have high standards, but here is my pet peeve. If you are a gun owner, then you should also live by those high standards. You mean to tell me if a person broke into your house, you do not have the right to detain (suspending his civil liberties) and you do not have the power to use deadly force if you feel your family or you are in danger. Do you think it is ok to drink and drive and endanger peoples lives, do you look down on those that do? If you get a conceal weapons permit you should live by those high standards, if you are a free man in this country you should live by these high standards. If the public would set their standards as high as they want the LEO to then we (LEO) would only be looking for the true bad guys and not "harassing" your family member that just got caught speeding. Yes the two are at the opposite end of the spectrum but I am just trying to make a point. Things like this tick me off like parents blaming the teachers for their kids being monsters. When are we (the public) going to take responsibility for our actions.
Now that I have fired up a lot of you "civilians" I just want to say that this is just my opinion and if you met me on the street you would think I am an ok guy but here you may think I am an a**hole because of my opinion. But this is what makes this country great; we are all allowed to voice our opinion (to a certain degree).
quote:I will disagree with you about Law Enforcement not being a "military organization". Law Enforcement is a Para-military organization. It is run just like the military
This is one place I see a problem. The military is task with protecting us by the constitution. They can also not be used to "police" within the borders of the United States.
The police are an organiztion that gets its powers from the States and Communities that charter them. THEY ARE NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN a military or even paramilitary org. This is an attitude that has only surfaced in the last few decades. Up untill that time the police didnt use "military" style weapons and certainly didnt have that mindset.
Our military's primary mission is to kill our enemies, thats what they train for and thats what the weapons are designed to do, a military mindset in a civilain service organization is a dangerous thing in my opnion.
Two different goals, two different sets of responsibilities and two entirely different sets of environments in which they work.
My concern is that to many police officers see us as civilians and themselves aa a "para-military" outfit.
Remember that you exist at the discression of the community/state that charter'd you. The Military exist as a result of the COnsitution, the military has a chain of command that goes to the President, who answers to congress, which is elected by US the civilians and ultimately answers to us the civilians.
quote:I will also not agree with you about LEO should have high standards, but here is my pet peeve. If you are a gun owner, then you should also live by those high standards.
Ahhh, but we have even higher standards than you, if a person attempts to run me over with a car I cannot shoot them, I have to retreat, if a person breaks into my house my first responsiblilty is to retreat, a LEO does not have to do that, he can shoot without having to retreat, he can fire if he is attacked by a person with a hammer, we have had in my area a man who was attacked by another man with a hammer and he shot the attacker, this man was charged (by the police and DA) with manslaughter, seems they felt he used to much force.
In 10 police shootings in my area in the last decade all of them were found to be "justified" yet civilians in the same set of circumstances(and there are at least 4) who have used deadly force have all been charged and 3 are in jail.
Double standard, you tell me.
In all of the above cases I feel that both the LEO and civilian were justified in the use of deadly force yet a Police review board (consisting of LEO's and an assistant DA) found all the officers "innocent" of wrongdoing yet the same police and DA's found the civilians should be charged. Now why is that?
quote:I will agree with you every day of the week that there are going to be corrupt departments that end up having to have a civilian committee come in and clean house but you do not hear about that as much as you use to
Here is where I really disagree with you. I truely dont believe that there are many "corrupt" Police agencies or even "corrupt" LEO's. As in any orginization you have your good and bad apples, cant help that, they all draw from the same pool of talent (the human race).
The issue is not whether there are "corrupt" police or Police departments, the issue is if whether the Police should Police themselves? Since the Police are a civilian created and controlled entity I say no. I think every decision that the Police make to use deadly force or to use certain tactics against the people they are sworn to protect shoudl be reviewed by those same people(the public).
What you have suggested is eriely similar to a national police state, where the police answer to no one but those in political power(just like the military) where citizens have no say and no control over those they have task with protecting them.
I personally have no problem with LEO's and how they do their jobs, I do however have concerns when the police , "police" themselves.
They are not a military entity, they are a Civilain agency.
quote: If the public would set their standards as high as they want the LEO to then we (LEO) would only be looking for the true bad guys and not "harassing" your family member that just got caught speeding
Dont think I ever inferred or tried to imply that any LEO "harasses" people. We, the public makes our laws and task LE with enforcing them. We (the public) do have the right to expect higher standards from those we hire(yes, we the public hire you to do this job), you arent drafted, you arent snatched off the street to do this job. You ask to do it and as any employer we have the right to tell you how to operate and what the rules will be. Try going to work for a company and then telling the CEO that a group of you have decided that any decisions you make will only be reviewed by that group.
Not happening, nor should it, but thats exactly the type of attitude a few in LE are getting, they see themselves as a seperate entity, one whos responsibility isnt to the public but to each other; sort of an us against them attitude. Thats dangerous to us the public, us the civilians. Yes we have right, nay a mandate to expect only the highest standards from LE.
My fear is that as civilian control of LE slips away we as a country are setting ourselves up for posibly some very serious abuse of powers. Its already happened to some extent in places like WACO and Ruby Ridge.
quote:Things like this tick me off like parents blaming the teachers for their kids being monsters. When are we (the public) going to take responsibility for our actions
I can certainly understand that train of thought and I agree with it.
However, you and I both know the truth is it isnt going to happen.
The LE community is going to continue to withdraw more and more and the attitude of us against them is going to fester on both sides.
The socio-economic and political rifts which divide this country are also going to continue to grow producing even more parents with no control over their kids and more social monsters and predators roaming our streets. This means we will nedd our LEO's even more than we do today. This also means that we the public need to be even more involved in the monitoring and even running of our various agencies.
I sincerly think that a good public review board or a governing body for LE agencies would be a good thing. I believe that people (contrary to what some LEO's think) would be willing to pay more to LE and to side with them in potential disputes far more often than LE thinks. Most of us civies arent stupid(just seems that way at times), we understand the nature and complexities of what you do, and what we dont understand we would like to. LE however seems to think we arent capable of that, that like a big brother they have to make our decisions for us. No so, but as long as LE continues to foster an US against them attitude and as long as the public continues to have the same attitude its only going to get worse.
You and all LEO's have my utmost respect for what you do. Its true that we never appreciate a cop till we need one and thats a shame. Perhaps if we the public show our appreciation more for what you do(as we do with firemen) then perhaps you(LE) whould have more faith in us.
JuJu(Thanks for the chance to debate and dont ever think I am anti-LE)
Military Police/Civilian Police
Military Authorties/Civil Authorities
Citizens/Civilians
Not in the military?, you are a CIVILIAN.
We did a thread on this awhile back. Cops ARE civilians. In the movie "McQ", John Wayne quit his cop job and told an aquaintance he was a civilian again. This is where the misnomer began.
On military leave orders, it states that in times of crisis, to avail yourself to CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES and offer and render assistance if required.
Citizens we all are. Active Duty Military are still citizens but they are not civilians. Everybody else is. I figure anyone that can call in sick or quit their job when they want to is positively NOT MILITARY.
One additional point; Anyone not answerable to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) cannot possibly be considered a military member. Last time I checked, civilians were not.
In regards to your repsonse on this thread: my point exactly. I stated that if I recalled correctly, the U.S. military was NOT turning volunteers for combat away and that flying an aircraft in peacetime was not as dangerous as flying one in wartime.
Your retort consisted of saying my memory was flawed and that, in effect, I had no right to speak my mind because I was not a combat pilot.
Well, to place your mind at ease, here's some support for my point of view. If you will not accept opinions, maybe you're intelligent enough to accept the facts.
From 1961 thru 1973, the years of our involvement in Vietnam, 1,521 Air Force pilots and crew lost their lives to enemy action over Southeast Asia. This number is for the Air Force only and does not include Navy or Marine aviators.
The number of Air National Guard that lost their lives to hostile fire over the skies of the United States during that same period: zero.
American pilots shot down over enemy territory stood a better than average chance of becoming POWs if they survived the crash. Pilots in the U.S. were unlikely to face internment and torture if their aircraft failed over American territory.
Pilots both in combat and out must prepare for technical malfunctions or accidents. Only pilots in combat have to worry about AA fire, SAMs, and hostile aircraft.
With the above information, I will suppose that even you will admit that I was not mistaken in my statement that flying an aircraft in peacetime was not AS dangerous as flying one in combat.
JuJu you said
quote:jc_howard, I dont think he took a shot at you (could be wrong), what I think he means and I have been around Police all my life, my mothers brother was a cop and my cousin was Chief of Police here in Cocoa beach. I also have several friends who are in Law enforcement so I think I can speak to this subject.
I let you slide on this in your first response, now I have to go back to this. If my mother was a doctor and my father was a lawyer, this does not mean I could testify at a malpractice suit. I will say this again; until you walk a mile in a person's shoes you can't truly understand them. Sorry but that is just the way it is. I can't tell you what it feels to fly a fighter, rush into a building that is in flames, or open a persons chest and do a heart bypass. So if there was a question about any of these, even if my mother was a doctor or my brother was a pilot and a lot of my friends were firefighters I could never give an expert opinion, just my opinion and that is just based on observation and not fact.
I never said the police department was a military organization. I said they were a paramilitary organization. Go out and look at the definition of paramilitary. If you had been in the military and then joined the PD you could give me a comparison. When you think of a military organization what comes to your mind? Uniforms, rank structure, chain of command, code of ethics, basic training, oath of office. Do me a favor go out and read the oath of office for the Marine Corp and then go and look at a couple of oaths from a police department. Ours like many stated we promise to swear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, to serve honestly and faithfully to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States of America and to the State of (put in your state). How many jobs do you know require an oath like this?
To continue on your mind thought, we have this great country and then this country is broken down into states, counties and then cities, town. The military's mission is to protect the country, not kill the enemy. We have strict rules of engagement. Ask any military man. Each of these entities have some sort of constitution or charter, they just don't go out and say today I think I will have a police department, no they write it in the charter, give the guidelines they expect the police department to follow, tell them the governor or mayor is in charge of the police department like the President is the Commander and Chief.
You may feel that this is two different sets of responsibilities and two entirely different sets of environments, but they are not. The police department wages a war against a sub-culture that would rather take the things that you have worked so hard for. The PD works to make it safe so you can sleep at night without you having to have someone on guard all night. They work hard at keeping the streets safe so your kids can play at parks and schools. Let me ask you a question have you ever been around a natural disaster and the bad guys come out and loot and pillage. Why do you think they are doing that? They know that the police is too busy with other things to come and stop them, why do they bring in the National Guard during these times and declare martial law? To bring order back into a place where the paramilitary has been overrun.
quote:Remember that you exist at the discression of the community/state that charter'd you. The Military exist as a result of the COnsitution, the military has a chain of command that goes to the President, who answers to congress, which is elected by US the civilians and ultimately answers to us the civilians
We exist to protect and serve, maintain order for you, me, our families and friends. Some advice, a statement like this builds those walls between the police and civilians. Hearing this from you makes me think that you would would tell me that you pay our salaries, when you forget I pay taxes too, so I am also paying my own salary. (Just and observation)
quote:Ahhh, but we have even higher standards than you, if a person attempts to run me over with a car I cannot shoot them, I have to retreat, if a person breaks into my house my first responsiblilty is to retreat, a LEO does not have to do that, he can shoot without having to retreat, he can fire if he is attacked by a person with a hammer, we have had in my area a man who was attacked by another man with a hammer and he shot the attacker, this man was charged (by the police and DA) with manslaughter, seems they felt he used to much force.
I could go on and on about your statements, you comments about a person attempting to run you over or if a person breaks into my house. I don't know what state you live in, but in my state my first responsibility is not to retreat but to protect my family and myself, and if I am in fear of my life or fear that a person may hurt my family he should bring more than a hammer to a gunfight. If I were you I would move out of that state.
When I first got into this discussion "Are outside opinions welcome?" I was asking a simple question of if someone (not you) was taking a shot at me, if is funny how you answered. Did you read about the discussion familyguy and I was having or did you just give me your two cents, not knowing what it was about. Now this has moved to something that could be a topic of it's own. You and I are going to agree to disagree on a lot of things in this discussion, paramilitary, police departments policing themselves and if you should be allowed to discuss police issues.
[:D]
quote:You and all LEO's have my utmost respect for what you do. Its true that we never appreciate a cop till we need one and thats a shame. Perhaps if we the public show our appreciation more for what you do(as we do with firemen) then perhaps you(LE) whould have more faith in us
Ok, we do agree on one thing.
P.S. One last thing, don't place local law enforcement in with Waco and Ruby Ridge. Those were federal organizations, commanded by the President of the United States at the time. We have different ways of looking at things.
I also hope that I did not offend you, you did not me, in fact I enjoy the debate. jc_howard_54 (retired Norfolk Police Sergeant)
Comments
Clouder..
So, as civilians, we should have nothing to say about police policy? People with guns and a badge in our community and we have no input?
Whoa Familyguy, did you just take a shot at me. About what I said in Cop Fired.
jc_howard, I dont think he took a shot at you (could be wrong), what I think he means and I have been around Police all my life, my mothers brother was a cop and my cousin was Chief of Police here in Cocoa beach. I also have several friends who are in Law enforcement so I think I can speak to this subject.
I think he meant that a lot of Law enforcement people, not all but a large part of them have the attitude that if you arent one of them then you cant possible understand the job or have any input as to how they perform their duties.
To some extent they may be right on that, however since the job of Law enforcement is to "SERVE and PROTECT" the public (us civies) and we(the taxpayers) pay the salaries we do in fact have both the right and obligation to have input on how Law Enforcement does their job.
LAw Enforcment is not a military orginization (though some would disagree) it is a function of local/state and federal government which is there to provide for the public(remember that phrase "public")good, just like fire and ambulance services.
The difference is that Law enforcement is the only one of those functions that has the power to suspend an individuals civil liberties(read: detention and/or arrest) or to use deadly force. As such they should be held to not only higher standards than the rest but should also be subject to tighter control and review of their actions than other orginizations. With greater power comes greater responsibility and greater need for stricter control and reivew.
A portion of Law Enforcement tends to see any effort by civilians(government or just plain JOHN DOE) to restrict/review or question any decision/action by them as an interference in their jobs. On the contrary it is a necessary evil and one which in my opnion should be more widespread and thourough in its application. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With politicians and other "elected" servants of the public(there's that word again) we can vote them out of office or even impeach them
if they step over the line or fail to perform in the best interest of the public. If law enforcement is policing itself then what recourse does the public have?
Now, before you or other LEO's get you panties in a wad let me say I wouldnt have your jobs for all the tea in china. 99.9% of you are overworked,underpaid,underappreciated and have one of the most stressful and dangerous jobs in the world and I admire and thank you for that.
I am just saying that any group of individuals that has the kind of power that LEO's have should be subject to review by the people that they are sworn to serve.
JuJu(who is probably going to be hammered on this one)
NRA Life Member ---"A pocket knife, a clean hankey, and a pistol... things I can use." - Ted Nugent
[:)]"PROBABLY"[:)]
With the caveat; The world would be a dull place without people, 'who are legends in their mind'[:0]
You speak up, you take flak....woops, "INCOMING"[xx(]
GRAMMA STILL THINKS I'M NUMBER ONE!
First I would never hammer you on your opinion. We all have them and everyone should be allowed to express them, just what a forum is about. There are two issues here. One if you were to read my comments on the article "Cop Fired" I don't think I ever said quote:"but it contains the same basic line: you're not a cop, you don't understand".
What I did say was walk a mile in a LEO shoes and then you may see it a little different, plus I was trying to offer some insight from a LEO point of view. I had no problem with what had happened (the cop being fired), these things happen, I just don't agree with a lot of comments about double standards.
The second problem I had was that Familyguy didn't say that in his response in the "Cop Fired" article but here where I might not see it. Say it to me; I am one who loves discussions and other opinions. Plus as Dennis Miller once said "this is my opinion I could be wrong". I could be.
Now I hope you are up for a little friendly debate. I will disagree with you about Law Enforcement not being a "military organization". Law Enforcement is a Para-military organization. It is run just like the military. It is run by the same hierarchy you have in the military. You have a chief (a general) who runs a group of people who goes out and protects and serves, just like the military. We have rules and regulations just like the military and the military polices itself in military trials where the public (oh and we do pay for our military service) does not have any impute on what the outcome is. Let me give you an example, the Col (not sure of his rank) who was just court-martialed for using an un-orthodox interrogation method to acquire information about an ambush against his troops. Most of the public when they (me included) hear about this wanted to promote this officer for doing what was necessary to save his troops in time of war. A military court tried him and it that was the way it should have been.
The police departments need to police its department. I will agree with you every day of the week that there are going to be corrupt departments that end up having to have a civilian committee come in and clean house but you do not hear about that as much as you use to. Believe me the press loves a corrupt police story; it is hard to hid your dirty laundry anymore. At my department you were "tired" before a law enforcement panel and discipline was dealt. If you disagreed with the outcome you could grieve it. The finial trial you went up against had one police representative, a one neutral civilian and you got to choose the third person. Another police officer or another civilian, your choice. Most of our officers when it would get to this point would have his attorney present. Now if you are charged with a criminal charge you are tried by your peers or public, you and I (now retired).
I will also not agree with you about LEO should have high standards, but here is my pet peeve. If you are a gun owner, then you should also live by those high standards. You mean to tell me if a person broke into your house, you do not have the right to detain (suspending his civil liberties) and you do not have the power to use deadly force if you feel your family or you are in danger. Do you think it is ok to drink and drive and endanger peoples lives, do you look down on those that do? If you get a conceal weapons permit you should live by those high standards, if you are a free man in this country you should live by these high standards. If the public would set their standards as high as they want the LEO to then we (LEO) would only be looking for the true bad guys and not "harassing" your family member that just got caught speeding. Yes the two are at the opposite end of the spectrum but I am just trying to make a point. Things like this tick me off like parents blaming the teachers for their kids being monsters. When are we (the public) going to take responsibility for our actions.
Now that I have fired up a lot of you "civilians" I just want to say that this is just my opinion and if you met me on the street you would think I am an ok guy but here you may think I am an a**hole because of my opinion. But this is what makes this country great; we are all allowed to voice our opinion (to a certain degree).
JuJu, thanks for the opinion.
jc_howard_54
This is one place I see a problem. The military is task with protecting us by the constitution. They can also not be used to "police" within the borders of the United States.
The police are an organiztion that gets its powers from the States and Communities that charter them. THEY ARE NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN a military or even paramilitary org. This is an attitude that has only surfaced in the last few decades. Up untill that time the police didnt use "military" style weapons and certainly didnt have that mindset.
Our military's primary mission is to kill our enemies, thats what they train for and thats what the weapons are designed to do, a military mindset in a civilain service organization is a dangerous thing in my opnion.
Two different goals, two different sets of responsibilities and two entirely different sets of environments in which they work.
My concern is that to many police officers see us as civilians and themselves aa a "para-military" outfit.
Remember that you exist at the discression of the community/state that charter'd you. The Military exist as a result of the COnsitution, the military has a chain of command that goes to the President, who answers to congress, which is elected by US the civilians and ultimately answers to us the civilians.
quote:I will also not agree with you about LEO should have high standards, but here is my pet peeve. If you are a gun owner, then you should also live by those high standards.
Ahhh, but we have even higher standards than you, if a person attempts to run me over with a car I cannot shoot them, I have to retreat, if a person breaks into my house my first responsiblilty is to retreat, a LEO does not have to do that, he can shoot without having to retreat, he can fire if he is attacked by a person with a hammer, we have had in my area a man who was attacked by another man with a hammer and he shot the attacker, this man was charged (by the police and DA) with manslaughter, seems they felt he used to much force.
In 10 police shootings in my area in the last decade all of them were found to be "justified" yet civilians in the same set of circumstances(and there are at least 4) who have used deadly force have all been charged and 3 are in jail.
Double standard, you tell me.
In all of the above cases I feel that both the LEO and civilian were justified in the use of deadly force yet a Police review board (consisting of LEO's and an assistant DA) found all the officers "innocent" of wrongdoing yet the same police and DA's found the civilians should be charged. Now why is that?
quote:I will agree with you every day of the week that there are going to be corrupt departments that end up having to have a civilian committee come in and clean house but you do not hear about that as much as you use to
Here is where I really disagree with you. I truely dont believe that there are many "corrupt" Police agencies or even "corrupt" LEO's. As in any orginization you have your good and bad apples, cant help that, they all draw from the same pool of talent (the human race).
The issue is not whether there are "corrupt" police or Police departments, the issue is if whether the Police should Police themselves? Since the Police are a civilian created and controlled entity I say no. I think every decision that the Police make to use deadly force or to use certain tactics against the people they are sworn to protect shoudl be reviewed by those same people(the public).
What you have suggested is eriely similar to a national police state, where the police answer to no one but those in political power(just like the military) where citizens have no say and no control over those they have task with protecting them.
I personally have no problem with LEO's and how they do their jobs, I do however have concerns when the police , "police" themselves.
They are not a military entity, they are a Civilain agency.
quote: If the public would set their standards as high as they want the LEO to then we (LEO) would only be looking for the true bad guys and not "harassing" your family member that just got caught speeding
Dont think I ever inferred or tried to imply that any LEO "harasses" people. We, the public makes our laws and task LE with enforcing them. We (the public) do have the right to expect higher standards from those we hire(yes, we the public hire you to do this job), you arent drafted, you arent snatched off the street to do this job. You ask to do it and as any employer we have the right to tell you how to operate and what the rules will be. Try going to work for a company and then telling the CEO that a group of you have decided that any decisions you make will only be reviewed by that group.
Not happening, nor should it, but thats exactly the type of attitude a few in LE are getting, they see themselves as a seperate entity, one whos responsibility isnt to the public but to each other; sort of an us against them attitude. Thats dangerous to us the public, us the civilians. Yes we have right, nay a mandate to expect only the highest standards from LE.
My fear is that as civilian control of LE slips away we as a country are setting ourselves up for posibly some very serious abuse of powers. Its already happened to some extent in places like WACO and Ruby Ridge.
quote:Things like this tick me off like parents blaming the teachers for their kids being monsters. When are we (the public) going to take responsibility for our actions
I can certainly understand that train of thought and I agree with it.
However, you and I both know the truth is it isnt going to happen.
The LE community is going to continue to withdraw more and more and the attitude of us against them is going to fester on both sides.
The socio-economic and political rifts which divide this country are also going to continue to grow producing even more parents with no control over their kids and more social monsters and predators roaming our streets. This means we will nedd our LEO's even more than we do today. This also means that we the public need to be even more involved in the monitoring and even running of our various agencies.
I sincerly think that a good public review board or a governing body for LE agencies would be a good thing. I believe that people (contrary to what some LEO's think) would be willing to pay more to LE and to side with them in potential disputes far more often than LE thinks. Most of us civies arent stupid(just seems that way at times), we understand the nature and complexities of what you do, and what we dont understand we would like to. LE however seems to think we arent capable of that, that like a big brother they have to make our decisions for us. No so, but as long as LE continues to foster an US against them attitude and as long as the public continues to have the same attitude its only going to get worse.
You and all LEO's have my utmost respect for what you do. Its true that we never appreciate a cop till we need one and thats a shame. Perhaps if we the public show our appreciation more for what you do(as we do with firemen) then perhaps you(LE) whould have more faith in us.
JuJu(Thanks for the chance to debate and dont ever think I am anti-LE)
Military Police/Civilian Police
Military Authorties/Civil Authorities
Citizens/Civilians
Not in the military?, you are a CIVILIAN.
We did a thread on this awhile back. Cops ARE civilians. In the movie "McQ", John Wayne quit his cop job and told an aquaintance he was a civilian again. This is where the misnomer began.
On military leave orders, it states that in times of crisis, to avail yourself to CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES and offer and render assistance if required.
Citizens we all are. Active Duty Military are still citizens but they are not civilians. Everybody else is. I figure anyone that can call in sick or quit their job when they want to is positively NOT MILITARY.
One additional point; Anyone not answerable to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) cannot possibly be considered a military member. Last time I checked, civilians were not.
My $2.
In regards to your repsonse on this thread: my point exactly. I stated that if I recalled correctly, the U.S. military was NOT turning volunteers for combat away and that flying an aircraft in peacetime was not as dangerous as flying one in wartime.
Your retort consisted of saying my memory was flawed and that, in effect, I had no right to speak my mind because I was not a combat pilot.
Well, to place your mind at ease, here's some support for my point of view. If you will not accept opinions, maybe you're intelligent enough to accept the facts.
From 1961 thru 1973, the years of our involvement in Vietnam, 1,521 Air Force pilots and crew lost their lives to enemy action over Southeast Asia. This number is for the Air Force only and does not include Navy or Marine aviators.
The number of Air National Guard that lost their lives to hostile fire over the skies of the United States during that same period: zero.
American pilots shot down over enemy territory stood a better than average chance of becoming POWs if they survived the crash. Pilots in the U.S. were unlikely to face internment and torture if their aircraft failed over American territory.
Pilots both in combat and out must prepare for technical malfunctions or accidents. Only pilots in combat have to worry about AA fire, SAMs, and hostile aircraft.
With the above information, I will suppose that even you will admit that I was not mistaken in my statement that flying an aircraft in peacetime was not AS dangerous as flying one in combat.
John
My Prayer: Dear Lord, Please let me be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.........
quote:jc_howard, I dont think he took a shot at you (could be wrong), what I think he means and I have been around Police all my life, my mothers brother was a cop and my cousin was Chief of Police here in Cocoa beach. I also have several friends who are in Law enforcement so I think I can speak to this subject.
I let you slide on this in your first response, now I have to go back to this. If my mother was a doctor and my father was a lawyer, this does not mean I could testify at a malpractice suit. I will say this again; until you walk a mile in a person's shoes you can't truly understand them. Sorry but that is just the way it is. I can't tell you what it feels to fly a fighter, rush into a building that is in flames, or open a persons chest and do a heart bypass. So if there was a question about any of these, even if my mother was a doctor or my brother was a pilot and a lot of my friends were firefighters I could never give an expert opinion, just my opinion and that is just based on observation and not fact.
I never said the police department was a military organization. I said they were a paramilitary organization. Go out and look at the definition of paramilitary. If you had been in the military and then joined the PD you could give me a comparison. When you think of a military organization what comes to your mind? Uniforms, rank structure, chain of command, code of ethics, basic training, oath of office. Do me a favor go out and read the oath of office for the Marine Corp and then go and look at a couple of oaths from a police department. Ours like many stated we promise to swear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, to serve honestly and faithfully to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States of America and to the State of (put in your state). How many jobs do you know require an oath like this?
To continue on your mind thought, we have this great country and then this country is broken down into states, counties and then cities, town. The military's mission is to protect the country, not kill the enemy. We have strict rules of engagement. Ask any military man. Each of these entities have some sort of constitution or charter, they just don't go out and say today I think I will have a police department, no they write it in the charter, give the guidelines they expect the police department to follow, tell them the governor or mayor is in charge of the police department like the President is the Commander and Chief.
You may feel that this is two different sets of responsibilities and two entirely different sets of environments, but they are not. The police department wages a war against a sub-culture that would rather take the things that you have worked so hard for. The PD works to make it safe so you can sleep at night without you having to have someone on guard all night. They work hard at keeping the streets safe so your kids can play at parks and schools. Let me ask you a question have you ever been around a natural disaster and the bad guys come out and loot and pillage. Why do you think they are doing that? They know that the police is too busy with other things to come and stop them, why do they bring in the National Guard during these times and declare martial law? To bring order back into a place where the paramilitary has been overrun.
quote:Remember that you exist at the discression of the community/state that charter'd you. The Military exist as a result of the COnsitution, the military has a chain of command that goes to the President, who answers to congress, which is elected by US the civilians and ultimately answers to us the civilians
We exist to protect and serve, maintain order for you, me, our families and friends. Some advice, a statement like this builds those walls between the police and civilians. Hearing this from you makes me think that you would would tell me that you pay our salaries, when you forget I pay taxes too, so I am also paying my own salary. (Just and observation)
quote:Ahhh, but we have even higher standards than you, if a person attempts to run me over with a car I cannot shoot them, I have to retreat, if a person breaks into my house my first responsiblilty is to retreat, a LEO does not have to do that, he can shoot without having to retreat, he can fire if he is attacked by a person with a hammer, we have had in my area a man who was attacked by another man with a hammer and he shot the attacker, this man was charged (by the police and DA) with manslaughter, seems they felt he used to much force.
I could go on and on about your statements, you comments about a person attempting to run you over or if a person breaks into my house. I don't know what state you live in, but in my state my first responsibility is not to retreat but to protect my family and myself, and if I am in fear of my life or fear that a person may hurt my family he should bring more than a hammer to a gunfight. If I were you I would move out of that state.
When I first got into this discussion "Are outside opinions welcome?" I was asking a simple question of if someone (not you) was taking a shot at me, if is funny how you answered. Did you read about the discussion familyguy and I was having or did you just give me your two cents, not knowing what it was about. Now this has moved to something that could be a topic of it's own. You and I are going to agree to disagree on a lot of things in this discussion, paramilitary, police departments policing themselves and if you should be allowed to discuss police issues.
[:D]
quote:You and all LEO's have my utmost respect for what you do. Its true that we never appreciate a cop till we need one and thats a shame. Perhaps if we the public show our appreciation more for what you do(as we do with firemen) then perhaps you(LE) whould have more faith in us
Ok, we do agree on one thing.
P.S. One last thing, don't place local law enforcement in with Waco and Ruby Ridge. Those were federal organizations, commanded by the President of the United States at the time. We have different ways of looking at things.
I also hope that I did not offend you, you did not me, in fact I enjoy the debate. jc_howard_54 (retired Norfolk Police Sergeant)