Questionable procedures by police last night
- Thread starter DunedinDragon
- Start date
- Status
NineseveN
member
The police have no duty to protect us. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Negative. I don't fault them for not being able to stop crime, that's a ridiculous weight to place onto anyone's shoulders. I do take issue with many of the things that police do in the name of the law and "officer safety", being ineffective in preemptively stopping crime is not one of them.
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
NineseviN
You're only partially right about the police not being able to protect.......at least in the eyes of the courts. In Domestic Violence situations, the courts have held that the police have some liability for the safety of DV victims.
As far as I know, that's the only time I've seen a Police Dept. lose a lawsuit based upon protection.
You're only partially right about the police not being able to protect.......at least in the eyes of the courts. In Domestic Violence situations, the courts have held that the police have some liability for the safety of DV victims.
As far as I know, that's the only time I've seen a Police Dept. lose a lawsuit based upon protection.
NineseveN
member
Alduro? You're telling me that the police have a duty to stop domestic violence before it happens?
Meaning: If I beat the snot out of my wife, can she sue the PD for not being there before I did it to preemptively stop me?
No, she can't.
What you're saying is that the police have a duty to act on domestic violence complaints, and keep them from happening again, which is a totally different situation. If I beat my wife, you cannot just shrug it off and say "oh well" when you respond, you have to act if the evidence warrants it (and the law backs you up on this).
But that's no different than any other crime. If I assault my neighbor with a hammer, you have to do something. If you fail to make the proper arrest (if evidence warrants it of course) your PD can be sued.
The same goes with DUI (i.e. a driver past the legal limit being let off with a warning at a DUI checkpoint).
The police have a duty to act upon crimes already committed (DV, DUI, A&B, B&E) but have no obligation to stop them before they materialize. It's splitting hairs really, but let's not make the police out to be the grand protectors of popular myth. They don't stop crime, they investigate crime and put offenders into the system for prosecution. Sure, through those actions they may prohibit that specific criminal from continuing in their criminal acts (until it gets to court, then it's the court's job to keep them incarcerated) but that process can only be done after a crime has been committed (which means that there is a victim 9 out of ten times -not counting drug users or other so-called "victimless crimes").
The police cannot protect you, and in fact, they can endanger non-LEO's through their actions all in the name of "officer safety"[/]. Most cops will say that their safety isn't exactly more important than the public they serve, except that every time someone questions a tactic that endangers a 'suspect', the police always come back with the “I am going home to my family and I don't care who gets offended or thinks their rights are violated" spiel and completely ignore the fact that the suspect has the very same desire and every right to go home to their family as well...but somehow their safety is a secondary concern (the actions of the police prove this despite claims to the contrary).
You guys make police work out to be so dangerous, and it's funny, because it's a profession with very few fatalities or injuries to those that practice it. If you want to see dangerous, go work on a crab boat.
Sure, every stop has the "potential" to be dangerous, but the likelihood that it will turn out to be violent is much less significant than the likelihood that an ordinary citizen will be raped, murdered or mugged on the street, and probably close to the same likelihood that the 'suspect' will be injured (either physically or legally in regards to their rights) by a police officer while being detained.
Homework assignment:
Take a look at all of the officer fatalities and injuries (while detaining or arresting a suspect) and count them; then count the number of legitimate police brutality cases, the number of unjustified negligent shootings or physical injuries sustained by suspects in the custody of the police, and the number of times a suspects rights were violated. I bet the numbers look scarier on the non-LEO side than most of you would like to admit.
I am with you guys on about 80%-85% of the issues surrounding police work (you guys and gals do have it tough, and often you are underpaid and under-appreciated and are stuck with an ineffective system that doesn’t back you up very well), but there has to be some limits, and I think the law enforcement community has taken too many liberties and needs to be reeled in and put back on “peace officer” status.
Meaning: If I beat the snot out of my wife, can she sue the PD for not being there before I did it to preemptively stop me?
No, she can't.
What you're saying is that the police have a duty to act on domestic violence complaints, and keep them from happening again, which is a totally different situation. If I beat my wife, you cannot just shrug it off and say "oh well" when you respond, you have to act if the evidence warrants it (and the law backs you up on this).
But that's no different than any other crime. If I assault my neighbor with a hammer, you have to do something. If you fail to make the proper arrest (if evidence warrants it of course) your PD can be sued.
The same goes with DUI (i.e. a driver past the legal limit being let off with a warning at a DUI checkpoint).
The police have a duty to act upon crimes already committed (DV, DUI, A&B, B&E) but have no obligation to stop them before they materialize. It's splitting hairs really, but let's not make the police out to be the grand protectors of popular myth. They don't stop crime, they investigate crime and put offenders into the system for prosecution. Sure, through those actions they may prohibit that specific criminal from continuing in their criminal acts (until it gets to court, then it's the court's job to keep them incarcerated) but that process can only be done after a crime has been committed (which means that there is a victim 9 out of ten times -not counting drug users or other so-called "victimless crimes").
The police cannot protect you, and in fact, they can endanger non-LEO's through their actions all in the name of "officer safety"[/]. Most cops will say that their safety isn't exactly more important than the public they serve, except that every time someone questions a tactic that endangers a 'suspect', the police always come back with the “I am going home to my family and I don't care who gets offended or thinks their rights are violated" spiel and completely ignore the fact that the suspect has the very same desire and every right to go home to their family as well...but somehow their safety is a secondary concern (the actions of the police prove this despite claims to the contrary).
You guys make police work out to be so dangerous, and it's funny, because it's a profession with very few fatalities or injuries to those that practice it. If you want to see dangerous, go work on a crab boat.
Sure, every stop has the "potential" to be dangerous, but the likelihood that it will turn out to be violent is much less significant than the likelihood that an ordinary citizen will be raped, murdered or mugged on the street, and probably close to the same likelihood that the 'suspect' will be injured (either physically or legally in regards to their rights) by a police officer while being detained.
Homework assignment:
Take a look at all of the officer fatalities and injuries (while detaining or arresting a suspect) and count them; then count the number of legitimate police brutality cases, the number of unjustified negligent shootings or physical injuries sustained by suspects in the custody of the police, and the number of times a suspects rights were violated. I bet the numbers look scarier on the non-LEO side than most of you would like to admit.
I am with you guys on about 80%-85% of the issues surrounding police work (you guys and gals do have it tough, and often you are underpaid and under-appreciated and are stuck with an ineffective system that doesn’t back you up very well), but there has to be some limits, and I think the law enforcement community has taken too many liberties and needs to be reeled in and put back on “peace officer” status.
Jeff White
Sorry, you did indeed misunderstand me. I now dial my voice mail when ever I am pulled over, (gotta get one of those phone cams). I record all traffic stops. As soon as I have appropriate legal representation I intend to inform the officer that I do not consent to being disarmed. If he proceeds I wont even raise my voice. But I will have proof of the events as they transpired. At that point I hope to bring the officer up on charges, federal and state, criminal and civil, hopefully. His representative will drag out the usual stats about the number of police officers killed and injured during traffic stops. My rep will then bring out
the number of police officers shot by CCWs. There must be at least oh at least two I think, out of the millions of CCWs issued. So the post that perhaps the police officer should disarm at traffic stops is perhaps not as unreasonable as it sounds. If, and its a big if, I win, I will insist any settlement will come out of the police officers paycheck. Thats the only way I know to get the message out to the leo community.
Sorry, you did indeed misunderstand me. I now dial my voice mail when ever I am pulled over, (gotta get one of those phone cams). I record all traffic stops. As soon as I have appropriate legal representation I intend to inform the officer that I do not consent to being disarmed. If he proceeds I wont even raise my voice. But I will have proof of the events as they transpired. At that point I hope to bring the officer up on charges, federal and state, criminal and civil, hopefully. His representative will drag out the usual stats about the number of police officers killed and injured during traffic stops. My rep will then bring out
the number of police officers shot by CCWs. There must be at least oh at least two I think, out of the millions of CCWs issued. So the post that perhaps the police officer should disarm at traffic stops is perhaps not as unreasonable as it sounds. If, and its a big if, I win, I will insist any settlement will come out of the police officers paycheck. Thats the only way I know to get the message out to the leo community.
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
NineseveN
Police work isn’t the most deadly job out there, but being deadly isn’t the end all, though tragic nonetheless. As for being dangerous, police officers and correctional officers are routinely assaulted….they are on the top of the list for professions that get assaulted. Guess what? They are also at the top of the list for injuries. That’s why it’s almost impossible or super expensive to get independent 3rd party disability insurance.
This is something you have not researched very well at all and is just plain wrong. Anyone reading this post might assume you have a clue as to what you are talking about when in fact you do not.
So what you are telling me (and everyone else) is that a police officer is less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an ordinary citizen? There is a little thing called the FBI Uniform Crime Reports….UCR and the NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey.
Look at the UCR numbers for police killed in the line of duty and assaulted in the line of duty. Take those numbers and divide them into the number of assaulted per 1000 residents. Then the number of assaulted per 1000 police officer. Do the same thing with homicide rates…each per 1000.
I’ll make it easier for you……..here’s a link http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RFW/is_2001_Annual/ai_n7639649
I’m not going to bother with the numbers too much, I’ve seen this before and I don’t think I will change your mind and I’m sure nobody in their right mind will take your argument seriously.
Year 2001: An approximate number of 129 assaults per 1000 Officers…or in UCR terms 12900 assaults per 100,000 officers
Same year: Citizens 504.4 per 100,000 victims of total violent crime. This includes assaults which was 318.5 per 100,000 residents.
So 12,900 vs. 318.5.
I’m not going into homicides, but the number and percentages will be similar.
I hate to beat you up with the facts here but check it out yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel02/cius2001.htm
As for your “homework assignment”….get educated, then give challenges. I’m not going to learn this stuff for you.
Come back with some hard numbers, then give me your opinion.
Until then, yours is speculation supported by postulation.
Police work isn’t the most deadly job out there, but being deadly isn’t the end all, though tragic nonetheless. As for being dangerous, police officers and correctional officers are routinely assaulted….they are on the top of the list for professions that get assaulted. Guess what? They are also at the top of the list for injuries. That’s why it’s almost impossible or super expensive to get independent 3rd party disability insurance.
This is something you have not researched very well at all and is just plain wrong. Anyone reading this post might assume you have a clue as to what you are talking about when in fact you do not.
So what you are telling me (and everyone else) is that a police officer is less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an ordinary citizen? There is a little thing called the FBI Uniform Crime Reports….UCR and the NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey.
Look at the UCR numbers for police killed in the line of duty and assaulted in the line of duty. Take those numbers and divide them into the number of assaulted per 1000 residents. Then the number of assaulted per 1000 police officer. Do the same thing with homicide rates…each per 1000.
I’ll make it easier for you……..here’s a link http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RFW/is_2001_Annual/ai_n7639649
I’m not going to bother with the numbers too much, I’ve seen this before and I don’t think I will change your mind and I’m sure nobody in their right mind will take your argument seriously.
Year 2001: An approximate number of 129 assaults per 1000 Officers…or in UCR terms 12900 assaults per 100,000 officers
Same year: Citizens 504.4 per 100,000 victims of total violent crime. This includes assaults which was 318.5 per 100,000 residents.
So 12,900 vs. 318.5.
I’m not going into homicides, but the number and percentages will be similar.
I hate to beat you up with the facts here but check it out yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel02/cius2001.htm
As for your “homework assignment”….get educated, then give challenges. I’m not going to learn this stuff for you.
Come back with some hard numbers, then give me your opinion.
Until then, yours is speculation supported by postulation.
NineseveN
member
Now that would be a shame. Individual officers, as a whole, are good people answering a calling that not many will. They're trained that way (to disarm) usually. FYI, no State Police Officer in Pennsylvania has ever disarmed me during any kind of stop. I am not legally obligated to inform them, but I do inform them of my CCW and any other weapons I have on my person or in my vehicle because I do understand that it would be preferable to be aware of that at the time of the stop than to discover it should they need to secure me for any reason. I know I am not doing anything illegal, so I volunteer that information.
Every, single one of them has thanked me profusely for letting them know and showing them that respect, and I have gotten off with warnings or 'no points' citations (yes, I used to speed quite frequently) partly as a result. I generally write a letter to their superiors informing them of the professionalism and courtesy of their officers (without saying they let me off with a warning of course) because I feel that doing so is simply the right thing to do.
The individual officer is usually only following protocol and/or training in regards to disarming a person. Now if you sue over an officer acting well outside department policy and procedure, that's a different story. This is just my opinion on the matter, but I think bankrupting the individual LEO over doing what he or she was told was legal to do and standard procedure is just not the right leg to sick the dog on.
NineseveN
member
I gotta go make some dinner Alduro, I'll be with you on this later. 
makarova,
I don't see how you can collect damages if the law requires you to surrender your weapon. There is a very slight possibility that you could get the law overturned on constitutional grounds. But all in all I see you spending a lot of money on a lawyer for a lost cause.
What injury are you going to say the law caused you? In order to have status even to bring a case to court, you have to prove you were harmed. How are you harmed by disarming?
What charges do you intent to file against the officer? What is your cause for a federal civil rights violation? Are you intending to claim that your Second Amendment rights were violated? What criminal charges do you think apply? Here is the section of the statute on Official Misconduct for Illinois:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=63800000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
The only thing that remotely applies is (b). But if the CCW law requires you to surrender your weapon then he's not knowingly exceeding his authority.
Officers are covered by the civil torts act. In other words, your plan to collect anything from the officer personally is also a lost cause unless the case is such that there was gross negligence or misconduct. The state will pay for the defense and any damages awarded if the judgement is because of a policy or procedure is ruled unconstitutional.
I'm sorry but I just don't see you even getting a court to hear those charges.
Jeff
I don't see how you can collect damages if the law requires you to surrender your weapon. There is a very slight possibility that you could get the law overturned on constitutional grounds. But all in all I see you spending a lot of money on a lawyer for a lost cause.
What injury are you going to say the law caused you? In order to have status even to bring a case to court, you have to prove you were harmed. How are you harmed by disarming?
What charges do you intent to file against the officer? What is your cause for a federal civil rights violation? Are you intending to claim that your Second Amendment rights were violated? What criminal charges do you think apply? Here is the section of the statute on Official Misconduct for Illinois:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=63800000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
The only thing that remotely applies is (b). But if the CCW law requires you to surrender your weapon then he's not knowingly exceeding his authority.
Officers are covered by the civil torts act. In other words, your plan to collect anything from the officer personally is also a lost cause unless the case is such that there was gross negligence or misconduct. The state will pay for the defense and any damages awarded if the judgement is because of a policy or procedure is ruled unconstitutional.
I'm sorry but I just don't see you even getting a court to hear those charges.
Jeff
cropcirclewalker
member
Probably a waste of time, but is there anybody here that can 'splain why the firearm is not returned to the license holder in the same condition that it was in when the license holder was disarmed?
Once it is obvious that the license holder has not committed any violations is it still an "Officer Safety" concern? Are cops afraid to be in the presence of an armed subject? How about another cop?
Cops have bullets in their guns, don't they? Isn't that an "Officer Safety" concern?
Once the chl guy has been determined to be an OK guy, how come we gotta separate the gun from the bullets. How about if the cops put the magazine and bullets on the curb next to their car so that they could make an extra quick getaway before the citizen could get to his ammo.
Are we that frightening?
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Makarova, you apparently have very little knowledge of how the legal system works. We’re not going to get into great detail, but here’s a Cliff’s notes version.
You feel your rights get violated and that you have evidence. A voicemail recording. I’m going to assume that all of your evidence will be admissible in a court of law (which it may or may not be depending upon the ruling of the judge…so don’t count on everything getting in).
1.) you will have to hire an attorney. Cheap ones may be retained around here for between $1,000 and $3,000. After which the attorney will likely charge a per hour fee for case preparation. An open and shut case can run about $12,000, taking all legal fees, private investigators hired, expert witness testimony (which you’ve already said you will have), etc. And this is on the cheap. Your out of pocket expenses will probably be somewhere in the arena of $15,000 to $30,000 depending upon how you proceed with the case, the duration of time it takes to build one and the lawyers and company’s various fees for service. In short, have some money stacks laying around, you’re going to need them.
2.) Plan on spending upwards of 3 years getting your case prepared and handled before this goes to court or even the court process itself. Do you know what a “stay of case” is? Both sides can put off the case indefinitely as long as the law and judge allows for such.
3.) The lawyer is going to advise you against suing the cop personally. Why? Because he is going to want to depose and subpoena the officer to testify on his actions, likely against some unscroupulous policy of the department (if there is one) because the lawyer is going for the deep pockets, the city, the state, the county, etc. Not some $40,000 a year pension. This is assuming of course you COULD sue the cop individually.
4.) If you insist the money come from the officer personally (which is not likely), very well, let’s say the officer loses the case and declares bankruptcy. Now what? The Federal Government is going to put a hold on all legal actions and debts pending, your debt will likely be dismissed or if not, you will receive a tiny allotment per month, but you will still have to pay your lawyer, likely up front.
5.) This is all assuming the officer doesn’t appeal the case, which likely he will since the union will back him and his legal fees are nil. But if he appeals, guess what happens to your legal fees? How high is too high?
6.) You will have lobby groups such as the FOP, IACP, etc who will gleefully fund the legal team for the officer.
The fact is you are likely to amass a HUGE debt trying to win a case that is not going to win. You are probably thinking Supreme Court, in which case I hope you have $100,000 just lying around, that’s if the court hears the case, likely it will not. You are also counting on a judge allowing a voicemail recording as admissible, who knows, maybe, maybe not. You are counting on a lawyer taking the case. You’re counting on a lot of stuff here.
This post is assuming you will report and sue as this being a federal case, civil rights violation. It will likely be Makarova vs. The State of PA
Personally, I’d feel completely safe disarming you from a legal standpoint as I’m sure most officers would.
You feel your rights get violated and that you have evidence. A voicemail recording. I’m going to assume that all of your evidence will be admissible in a court of law (which it may or may not be depending upon the ruling of the judge…so don’t count on everything getting in).
1.) you will have to hire an attorney. Cheap ones may be retained around here for between $1,000 and $3,000. After which the attorney will likely charge a per hour fee for case preparation. An open and shut case can run about $12,000, taking all legal fees, private investigators hired, expert witness testimony (which you’ve already said you will have), etc. And this is on the cheap. Your out of pocket expenses will probably be somewhere in the arena of $15,000 to $30,000 depending upon how you proceed with the case, the duration of time it takes to build one and the lawyers and company’s various fees for service. In short, have some money stacks laying around, you’re going to need them.
2.) Plan on spending upwards of 3 years getting your case prepared and handled before this goes to court or even the court process itself. Do you know what a “stay of case” is? Both sides can put off the case indefinitely as long as the law and judge allows for such.
3.) The lawyer is going to advise you against suing the cop personally. Why? Because he is going to want to depose and subpoena the officer to testify on his actions, likely against some unscroupulous policy of the department (if there is one) because the lawyer is going for the deep pockets, the city, the state, the county, etc. Not some $40,000 a year pension. This is assuming of course you COULD sue the cop individually.
4.) If you insist the money come from the officer personally (which is not likely), very well, let’s say the officer loses the case and declares bankruptcy. Now what? The Federal Government is going to put a hold on all legal actions and debts pending, your debt will likely be dismissed or if not, you will receive a tiny allotment per month, but you will still have to pay your lawyer, likely up front.
5.) This is all assuming the officer doesn’t appeal the case, which likely he will since the union will back him and his legal fees are nil. But if he appeals, guess what happens to your legal fees? How high is too high?
6.) You will have lobby groups such as the FOP, IACP, etc who will gleefully fund the legal team for the officer.
The fact is you are likely to amass a HUGE debt trying to win a case that is not going to win. You are probably thinking Supreme Court, in which case I hope you have $100,000 just lying around, that’s if the court hears the case, likely it will not. You are also counting on a judge allowing a voicemail recording as admissible, who knows, maybe, maybe not. You are counting on a lawyer taking the case. You’re counting on a lot of stuff here.
This post is assuming you will report and sue as this being a federal case, civil rights violation. It will likely be Makarova vs. The State of PA
Personally, I’d feel completely safe disarming you from a legal standpoint as I’m sure most officers would.
cropcirclewalker
member
I guess my post above was a rhetorical question.
I don't expect anybody to answer because really, there is no good answer.
The second title and that which is emboldened should be titled "REQUIREMENT OF PEACE OFFICER TO REARM" Of course we will not see that title.
Some might say that unnecessary handling of another's firearm could be unsafe and result in "Accidental Discharge". (If the citizen does it, it's call "Negligent Discharge") That argument is a two edged sword. If we are concerned about ADs, then, why the heck is the cop unloading the piece in the first place? Ha, two edged sword.
What I suspect to be the real answer unless there are some cops who fear a lawfully armed subject (which there could be) is that it's a power thing.
Yes, Disarming the "subject" teaches the citizen the proper level of humility.
Returning the citizen's piece might be construed to suggest that the public servent was perhaps needlessly frightened of his employer, the citizen and is showing the proper level of respect and in effect apologizing for his treatment.
No, we couldn't have that.
Back in 2003 I was arrested for committing a lawful act and chained to a bench for 2 hours while the PTB tried to figure out what to charge me with. When they finally released me with the stern admonishment not to return to the airport with a lawfully carried firearm, they returned my piece to me in a cardboard box with the slide removed but with the bullets still in the magazine. All in one box. That was pretty brave of them, don't you think?
I will reiterate;
I committed a lawful act.
I was arrested and falsely imprisoned.
I was released with no charges.
My piece was returned disassembled (I guess to protect the leos from a nd)
Instead of an apology I was given a stern admonishment.
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
I don't expect anybody to answer because really, there is no good answer.
should really be broken into two laws the first of which could be called, like it is, "AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM"
The second title and that which is emboldened should be titled "REQUIREMENT OF PEACE OFFICER TO REARM" Of course we will not see that title.
Some might say that unnecessary handling of another's firearm could be unsafe and result in "Accidental Discharge". (If the citizen does it, it's call "Negligent Discharge") That argument is a two edged sword. If we are concerned about ADs, then, why the heck is the cop unloading the piece in the first place? Ha, two edged sword.
What I suspect to be the real answer unless there are some cops who fear a lawfully armed subject (which there could be) is that it's a power thing.
Yes, Disarming the "subject" teaches the citizen the proper level of humility.
Returning the citizen's piece might be construed to suggest that the public servent was perhaps needlessly frightened of his employer, the citizen and is showing the proper level of respect and in effect apologizing for his treatment.
No, we couldn't have that.
Back in 2003 I was arrested for committing a lawful act and chained to a bench for 2 hours while the PTB tried to figure out what to charge me with. When they finally released me with the stern admonishment not to return to the airport with a lawfully carried firearm, they returned my piece to me in a cardboard box with the slide removed but with the bullets still in the magazine. All in one box. That was pretty brave of them, don't you think?
I will reiterate;
I committed a lawful act.
I was arrested and falsely imprisoned.
I was released with no charges.
My piece was returned disassembled (I guess to protect the leos from a nd)
Instead of an apology I was given a stern admonishment.
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
NineseveN
member
Alduro,
There are a few things you have ignored and if you re-read my post and understand that I had the UCR and NVCS reports in mind, and notice that I was not solely counting physical injuries or assaults, then my statement of "I bet the numbers look scarier on the non-LEO side than most of you would like to admit." would make some sense. I did not say that being a normal citizen was more physically dangerous than being a police officer (I feel that it is similar or worse in potential), so read again and hopefully you'll understand. You also failed to take into account injuries in regards to a person's civil/constitutional rights and accidental police shootings on the LEO VS non-LEO safety.
ON the issue of fatalities of LEO's versus other professions:
From the 2004 UCR IIRC:
56 or 57 LEO’s were killed (feloniously) in around 50 or so incidents I think 80 to 85 were killed accidentally. We’ll go with the higher number as my memory is foggy at the moment and I don’t want my bacon to burn while I look this up. 142 sworn officers killed of 675,000 total sworn officers (give or take a few hundred or so). That’s like, what, 21 per 100,000 then?
Contrast that to 2003 data that shows that there were 117 fatalities per 100,000 lumberjacks, 71 per 100,000 fisherpersons (gotta be PC ya know), 69.8 per 100,000 pilots and navigators, 58.2 per 100,000 structural metal workers, 37.9 per 100,000 driver-sales workers, 37.0 per 100,000 roofers, 32.5 per 100,000 electrical power installers, 28.0 per 100,000 farm-related workers, 27.7 per 100,000 construction workers or 25.0 per 100,000 truck drivers. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those numbers should be good to go, I copied and pasted them from a report I did for a project I worked on, I’m pretty sure I pulled them from the checked copy of the report.
So, law enforcement isn’t as bad as some make it out to be fatality rate-wise. As for the assaults, I have 2 problems with this. First of all, it is a crime to assault a police officer, and if you do, that specific police officer or department will arrest you which leads to a very high rate of reporting the assaults. Whereas, many, many assaults in the non-LEO sector go unreported, and you know that. This is for various reasons, some of them are based on some form of illegal conduct that the victim was engaged in at the time of the assault (and does not want the po-po involved) and it can also be a product of the simple human nature of either not wanting to admit one got their arse kicked and would prefer to settle it on their own or simply not trusting the police to care, do the right thing or do anything about it (though I think the latter feelings are often misplaced).
I have been shot at on multiple occasion
Stabbed or sliced twice
Assaulted by a group of 2 or more people on nearly 20 occasions
Been hit with bottles, bricks, rocks and baseball bats on multiple occasions
Been assaulted with crowbars, Big-Wheels (yes, Big-Wheels, the plastic scooter), maced, stun-gunned and hit with a motor vehicle on purpose all at least once
And I have been in probably 70 to 75 fist fights
Only three times were the authorities involved (at my request as I was not the aggressor).
This all occurred while I was in my younger days, in the economically challenged slums on suburban Pittsburgh. It has been nearly 8 years since the last of those incidents. It is not uncommon for assaults on private citizens (battery, rape etc...) to go unreported, murder probably has the highest rate of report. I would venture to guess that the majority of assaults against officers are in fact reported as they must be if they're going to charge the attacker and I would think that department policy surrounding an officer susatining injuries during a stop or arrest would make this pretty much automatic in most cases.
The desire for bacon sandwiches currently hinders my ability to do mathematics and statistical analysis, so again, feel free to check my math, I will when I get back.
There are a few things you have ignored and if you re-read my post and understand that I had the UCR and NVCS reports in mind, and notice that I was not solely counting physical injuries or assaults, then my statement of "I bet the numbers look scarier on the non-LEO side than most of you would like to admit." would make some sense. I did not say that being a normal citizen was more physically dangerous than being a police officer (I feel that it is similar or worse in potential), so read again and hopefully you'll understand. You also failed to take into account injuries in regards to a person's civil/constitutional rights and accidental police shootings on the LEO VS non-LEO safety.
ON the issue of fatalities of LEO's versus other professions:
From the 2004 UCR IIRC:
56 or 57 LEO’s were killed (feloniously) in around 50 or so incidents I think 80 to 85 were killed accidentally. We’ll go with the higher number as my memory is foggy at the moment and I don’t want my bacon to burn while I look this up. 142 sworn officers killed of 675,000 total sworn officers (give or take a few hundred or so). That’s like, what, 21 per 100,000 then?
Contrast that to 2003 data that shows that there were 117 fatalities per 100,000 lumberjacks, 71 per 100,000 fisherpersons (gotta be PC ya know), 69.8 per 100,000 pilots and navigators, 58.2 per 100,000 structural metal workers, 37.9 per 100,000 driver-sales workers, 37.0 per 100,000 roofers, 32.5 per 100,000 electrical power installers, 28.0 per 100,000 farm-related workers, 27.7 per 100,000 construction workers or 25.0 per 100,000 truck drivers. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those numbers should be good to go, I copied and pasted them from a report I did for a project I worked on, I’m pretty sure I pulled them from the checked copy of the report.
So, law enforcement isn’t as bad as some make it out to be fatality rate-wise. As for the assaults, I have 2 problems with this. First of all, it is a crime to assault a police officer, and if you do, that specific police officer or department will arrest you which leads to a very high rate of reporting the assaults. Whereas, many, many assaults in the non-LEO sector go unreported, and you know that. This is for various reasons, some of them are based on some form of illegal conduct that the victim was engaged in at the time of the assault (and does not want the po-po involved) and it can also be a product of the simple human nature of either not wanting to admit one got their arse kicked and would prefer to settle it on their own or simply not trusting the police to care, do the right thing or do anything about it (though I think the latter feelings are often misplaced).
I have been shot at on multiple occasion
Stabbed or sliced twice
Assaulted by a group of 2 or more people on nearly 20 occasions
Been hit with bottles, bricks, rocks and baseball bats on multiple occasions
Been assaulted with crowbars, Big-Wheels (yes, Big-Wheels, the plastic scooter), maced, stun-gunned and hit with a motor vehicle on purpose all at least once
And I have been in probably 70 to 75 fist fights
Only three times were the authorities involved (at my request as I was not the aggressor).
This all occurred while I was in my younger days, in the economically challenged slums on suburban Pittsburgh. It has been nearly 8 years since the last of those incidents. It is not uncommon for assaults on private citizens (battery, rape etc...) to go unreported, murder probably has the highest rate of report. I would venture to guess that the majority of assaults against officers are in fact reported as they must be if they're going to charge the attacker and I would think that department policy surrounding an officer susatining injuries during a stop or arrest would make this pretty much automatic in most cases.
The desire for bacon sandwiches currently hinders my ability to do mathematics and statistical analysis, so again, feel free to check my math, I will when I get back.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
I'm finding myself in the odd position of agreeing with CropCircleWalker (hey, we've missed you around here lately, where ya' been?). Frankly, once a citizen displays his hall pass ... er, valid CCW permit, CHL, CPL, whatever ... I have to agree that should be good enough for any law enforcement officer -- the LEO should NOT ever have to ever take a citizen's firearm, clear it, and hold it until the "situation" is "resolved," assuming there is no overt threat against the LEO. At some point -- we have to to simply go ahead based on the principle that the citizens are only going to do the right things.
The Real Hawkeye
member
If it's so tough a job, do something else. We have about two hundred times more law enforcement officers than we need anyway. I hear McDonnell's is hiring.
SolaScriptura139
Member
Wow, this thread is horrendously off-topic. I think it's sad that people manage to turn a simple thread asking for just a few ideas about a situation into a tirade about police officers. If you wanna argue about rights (and not manage to just bash cops), why not start a thread about it, then it wouldn't be off topic to the current thread. I'm sure DunedinDragon never intended for this thread to end up like this. Utterly Low Road. :banghead:
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Dog, thank you for the words of kindness.
Yes, I am not a COP Basher. I am a STUPID COP Basher.
This "Officer Safety" nonsequiter is what has my skivvies in a twist. I just cannot understand how a leo can purposefully disarm the most law abiding segment of our population. and
Frankfully speaking the GOOD cops don't. Yes, I hate to ruin my reputation, but there are good cops.
I pulled up for a soberiety check one Friday night about midnight in Kevil KY. This is actually the first time I ever hadda look a cop in the eye while armed. I was driving all night on a trip to NC to pick up SWMBO and there I was.
Soberiety Check. I was sober but my 1911 was laying on the seat. This was back before MO had concealed carry but I knew that in MO that open carry was legal in all but the most socialist cities. I also knew that Kentucky allowed open carry.
It was just the stigmatizm that we are all subjected to by the managed media.
As I slowly drove up to the cop with the flashlight I saw the repeats of the TV shows where the cop shouts, "GUN" and everybody throws down on the bg.
Should I just flop my jacket over my 1911? In MO that would be a felony.
"NO", I says, I will look them in the eye and bluff them through.
I read in a court proceeding once that a MO supreme justice said, "A right not asserted is a right waived." That gave me strength.
So I drive up, the cop shines his maglight onto my piece and says, "Is that your weapon?" I was the onlyest guy in the car. I was nervous. I said, "Yessir".
I should have said, "What? are you stupid?"
Then he said something like how in the future I should tell the cop that I was armed and that maybe the cop would want me to hand over the "Weapon" so that he wouldn't be concerned (he really meant "afraid") and all like that and I said over and over "OK" and then, obviously, since I wasn't drunk, he sent me on my way.
So I head on off down the road. I WAS INCREDULOUS. No orange coveralls. No face on the concrete.
I had been immunized.
Since then and before we got CCW in MO it was not a big deal. Numerous time I went through the check points and once pulled over for DWP in my old truck and once I forgot to cover my piece when I went through a Burger King drive thru. (I wasn't even 2 miles down the road before the statie pulled me over)
Simple, I was immunized. Put the piece on the seat if alone or on the dash if wifey or dog was on the seat. After immunization, never a problem, (well, until I went to the airport at the Loo)
The overwhelming majority of leos understand the law and become aware of a citizen who is aware of the law. A State Trooper (working on my satelite dish) told me that when a trooper sees a guy with a gun on the seat he just knows that the "subject" is aware of firearms laws so he leaves him alone.
Those are good guys.
Not trying to set fire to the fuzz, but youse cops that have to disarm those of us that have submitted ourselves to the humiliation of a background check to assert a God given, not .gov given right to self defense are
PU$$IES
Yes, I am not a COP Basher. I am a STUPID COP Basher.
This "Officer Safety" nonsequiter is what has my skivvies in a twist. I just cannot understand how a leo can purposefully disarm the most law abiding segment of our population. and
Frankfully speaking the GOOD cops don't. Yes, I hate to ruin my reputation, but there are good cops.
I pulled up for a soberiety check one Friday night about midnight in Kevil KY. This is actually the first time I ever hadda look a cop in the eye while armed. I was driving all night on a trip to NC to pick up SWMBO and there I was.
Soberiety Check. I was sober but my 1911 was laying on the seat. This was back before MO had concealed carry but I knew that in MO that open carry was legal in all but the most socialist cities. I also knew that Kentucky allowed open carry.
It was just the stigmatizm that we are all subjected to by the managed media.
As I slowly drove up to the cop with the flashlight I saw the repeats of the TV shows where the cop shouts, "GUN" and everybody throws down on the bg.
Should I just flop my jacket over my 1911? In MO that would be a felony.
"NO", I says, I will look them in the eye and bluff them through.
I read in a court proceeding once that a MO supreme justice said, "A right not asserted is a right waived." That gave me strength.
So I drive up, the cop shines his maglight onto my piece and says, "Is that your weapon?" I was the onlyest guy in the car. I was nervous. I said, "Yessir".
I should have said, "What? are you stupid?"
Then he said something like how in the future I should tell the cop that I was armed and that maybe the cop would want me to hand over the "Weapon" so that he wouldn't be concerned (he really meant "afraid") and all like that and I said over and over "OK" and then, obviously, since I wasn't drunk, he sent me on my way.
So I head on off down the road. I WAS INCREDULOUS. No orange coveralls. No face on the concrete.
I had been immunized.
Since then and before we got CCW in MO it was not a big deal. Numerous time I went through the check points and once pulled over for DWP in my old truck and once I forgot to cover my piece when I went through a Burger King drive thru. (I wasn't even 2 miles down the road before the statie pulled me over)
Simple, I was immunized. Put the piece on the seat if alone or on the dash if wifey or dog was on the seat. After immunization, never a problem, (well, until I went to the airport at the Loo)
The overwhelming majority of leos understand the law and become aware of a citizen who is aware of the law. A State Trooper (working on my satelite dish) told me that when a trooper sees a guy with a gun on the seat he just knows that the "subject" is aware of firearms laws so he leaves him alone.
Those are good guys.
Not trying to set fire to the fuzz, but youse cops that have to disarm those of us that have submitted ourselves to the humiliation of a background check to assert a God given, not .gov given right to self defense are
PU$$IES
NineseveN
member
Predicition: thread lock in 3-2-1.....
The Real Hawkeye
member
I guess anyone who knows the difference between your and you're would not be qualified, eh?
NineseveN
member
Neither of you are helping...not sure I am at this point either. :banghead:
cropcirclewalker
member
So, Mr. 97, I am all confused.
Are you talking about me?
Are you talking about me?
Hawk
Thats the best you got. There is a big difference, I do it and do it well. You just talk a lot behind a keyboard. As for the earlier post about your cholesterol, I noticed you did not refute the part about being a miserable fella. As for concern, it more pity.
Thats the best you got. There is a big difference, I do it and do it well. You just talk a lot behind a keyboard. As for the earlier post about your cholesterol, I noticed you did not refute the part about being a miserable fella. As for concern, it more pity.
NineseveN
member
Just stating my opinion that anyone that does anything to get this thread closed (i.e. blatant ad hominem, insults, attacks, whatever) just is not helping the discussion. "If the shoe fits, welcome to the ball, Cinderella" is what I always say.
I'd like to see this thread last a bit longer than the usual thread on this type of discussion, sadly, it's looking more like a dodo with every passing post.
Cheers.
I'd like to see this thread last a bit longer than the usual thread on this type of discussion, sadly, it's looking more like a dodo with every passing post.
Cheers.
- Status
