This Is What's Wrong With Law Enforcement, Today...

[Czernobog]

I've been watching the House committee on Security hearing, and while I get that The Secret Service under Pierson needs to be looked at, and the anger at her leadership appears to be non-partisan, one line of questioning rather concerned me. Representative Chavetz (R -UT) made several references to the man stopped on the white House lawn. Asking if the Security men at the White House should have used lethal force. At one point he asked if, even though there was no visible threat, should lethal force have been used, and suggested that we should always assume that threat is imminent.

I have a problem with that. I mean that is the very attitude that led to a kid being shot over an air gun, and a SC officer shooting a guy for going after his license. We are teaching our officers that every single person they talk to is a potential immediate threat, even though the reality is that very few encounters result in police being shot at.

Seems to me that we need to start teaching our law enforcement to be less paranoid, not more paranoid.

As I'm sure it's going to be asked for, I want to apologize for not being able to source the representative's comments. since this was only a couple of hours ago, I tried, but couldn't find video, or transcript of the exact comments, which is why I just paraphrased, instead of quoting him directly.

 

[Czernobog]

Damn...I kinda thought, between this, and the recent rash of police overkill, this might have been something folks might have opinions on...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I've been watching the House committee on Security hearing, and while I get that The Secret Service under Pierson needs to be looked at, and the anger at her leadership appears to be non-partisan, one line of questioning rather concerned me. Representative Chavetz (R -UT) made several references to the man stopped on the white House lawn. Asking if the Security men at the White House should have used lethal force. At one point he asked if, even though there was no visible threat, should lethal force have been used, and suggested that we should always assume that threat is imminent.

I have a problem with that. I mean that is the very attitude that led to a kid being shot over an air gun, and a SC officer shooting a guy for going after his license. We are teaching our officers that every single person they talk to is a potential immediate threat, even though the reality is that very few encounters result in police being shot at.

Seems to me that we need to start teaching our law enforcement to be less paranoid, not more paranoid.

As I'm sure it's going to be asked for, I want to apologize for not being able to source the representative's comments. since this was only a couple of hours ago, I tried, but couldn't find video, or transcript of the exact comments, which is why I just paraphrased, instead of quoting him directly.

First, comparing a protective detail like the Secret Service provide with cops in terms of being paranoid is silly. Part of being a good protective detail is being paranoid.

That isn't part of being a cop. I mean sure they have to be wary every time they make a traffic stop or whatever, but not like the Service where literally every person who crosses whatever boundary is a thread. It's completely different.

Second, being paranoid doesn't have to result in shooting someone.

 

[ChrisL]

I've been watching the House committee on Security hearing, and while I get that The Secret Service under Pierson needs to be looked at, and the anger at her leadership appears to be non-partisan, one line of questioning rather concerned me. Representative Chavetz (R -UT) made several references to the man stopped on the white House lawn. Asking if the Security men at the White House should have used lethal force. At one point he asked if, even though there was no visible threat, should lethal force have been used, and suggested that we should always assume that threat is imminent.

I have a problem with that. I mean that is the very attitude that led to a kid being shot over an air gun, and a SC officer shooting a guy for going after his license. We are teaching our officers that every single person they talk to is a potential immediate threat, even though the reality is that very few encounters result in police being shot at.

Seems to me that we need to start teaching our law enforcement to be less paranoid, not more paranoid.

As I'm sure it's going to be asked for, I want to apologize for not being able to source the representative's comments. since this was only a couple of hours ago, I tried, but couldn't find video, or transcript of the exact comments, which is why I just paraphrased, instead of quoting him directly.

Considering that presidents have been assassinated in the past and that the POTUS is the MOST important man in the world, then I do not think that is unreasonable. Hell, just don't do it, and you don't have to worry about getting shot.

Maybe some of these morons need to be put out of OUR misery.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay...guess maybe I didn't think of it like that...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Okay...guess maybe I didn't think of it like that...

ok....You're police officer.
You observe a car with 4 occupants. The driver commits a traffic violation. It's late at night. You're in an area where the roadway is not well lit.
You go lights on to perform a stop.
After a half mile, the driver decides to stop. The driver does not turn on the car's dome light and you cannot even with your car mounted spotlight, cannot se the hands of the car's occupants. You do notice that the occupants are moving about. Perhaps appearing as though they are trying to conceal something. Or perhaps reaching for a weapon.
Handle this stop.....GO!
Here's another one.
You are on highway patrol in a state where it is permissible for a permitted person to carry a weapon in the automobile. There is an " in plain sight" requirement.
You have put on your lights and activated your siren in an attempt to stop the vehicle. The vehicle has darkly tinted windows. Possible in violation.
As you are stopping the vehicle you observe the driver moving about in a manner which makes you suspicious. The driver does not pull off the road immediately.
Once stopped, the driver appears to attempt to exit the vehicle....
Handle this stop,.....GO!

 

[Czernobog]

Okay...guess maybe I didn't think of it like that...

ok....You're police officer.
You observe a car with 4 occupants. The driver commits a traffic violation. It's late at night. You're in an area where the roadway is not well lit.
You go lights on to perform a stop.
After a half mile, the driver decides to stop. The driver does not turn on the car's dome light and you cannot even with your car mounted spotlight, cannot se the hands of the car's occupants. You do notice that the occupants are moving about. Perhaps appearing as though they are trying to conceal something. Or perhaps reaching for a weapon.
Handle this stop.....GO!
Here's another one.
You are on highway patrol in a state where it is permissible for a permitted person to carry a weapon in the automobile. There is an " in plain sight" requirement.
You have put on your lights and activated your siren in an attempt to stop the vehicle. The vehicle has darkly tinted windows. Possible in violation.
As you are stopping the vehicle you observe the driver moving about in a manner which makes you suspicious. The driver does not pull off the road immediately.
Once stopped, the driver appears to attempt to exit the vehicle....
Handle this stop,.....GO!

Guess what? If you want to be protected at all times, don't be a cop. However, the correct response has never been, and still should not be shoot first.