TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Yes it does, but it's 90% hype by those who sell body armor for the purpose of selling more body armor. Dupont has tested 30 year old body armor and it functions just like it did the day it was made. It does deteriorate if it gets wet and sweat will cause it to deteriorate over time. If it's sealed so it doesn't get wet it doesn't deteriorate. Merely being exposed to the air doesn't result in deterioration. I have some and it is sealed in a moisture proof liner. As long as the liner remains intact and doesn't admit moisture it will be fine.

The funny thing is, your contention that it's a liability issue is more of an argument that officers should buy their own body armor to relieve the department of that liability --or that the department provide a stipend for officers so they can buy their own armor. The department incurs all kinds of costs by issuing it themselves, and IF there is any liability, that too. It would be more cost effective to provide officers with an allowance and have them buy their own body armor. As it is now some departments buy new armor to replace armor that was never even worn and hence does not need to be replaced. A complete waste of money. But hey, just tax dollars, and someone may have a brother-in-law that sells body armor.

Well as long as 30-year-old body armor has the VMI77 seal of approval

I've actually seen expired body armor stop rounds larger and faster than it was rated to stop before expiration. And if you want to wear expired armor to a gunfight, by all means go ahead. But if you want to mandate someone enter a gunfight (police have a duty to act) then you have a moral obligation to provide them with the best equipment for that dangerous job. If and probably, even likely, are not words I want to hear when choosing a life saving device. Would you board a plane that has a 90% chance of completing the flight and landing safely?

Come on, get real.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur.....well, two non-sequiturs. Dupont did the test, not me. And I have no idea where you got a 90% chance of anything, much less a 90% reliability for body armor number that you're apparently nonsensically comparing to a 90% chance of a plane completing a flight.

Moral obligation this, moral obligation that.....I don't think you actually know what morality is. No one has a "moral obligation" to provide you with anything at someone else's expense. In the first place, no one mandates anyone become a LEO and be involved in a gunfight. That's a choice an individual makes knowing what the risks are --or in ignorance....doesn't matter, if the choice was made freely, the individual is still responsible for that choice and determining the risks. If it were "mandated" and you had no choice you might have somewhat of a point, but your whole argument is based on the false claim that someone is forced to be a LEO.

And wow, because an individual chooses to become a LEO it confers a moral obligation on someone else to provide them with the best equipment? Are you a government employee by chance? A choice YOU make cannot confer a moral obligation on another person. This isn't a world where your choice to do something confers any moral obligation on another person to provide you with the best of anything.

Geez, time to dismount the moral high horse and get real.

Society mandates upon all police a DUTY to act. So yes, society has a moral obligation to provide the best tools possible for police to carry out their duty. Sorry you're so warped by your pseudo anarcho-libertarian belief structure that you can't fathom this concept, but I'm done explaining it to you. YOU stated police are one of the few legitimate government functions. So pony up, man up, or shut up.

I'm done responding to your blather.

But go ahead, type another windbaggery retort if it makes you feel superior.

I'll rest on my morals.

mojo84 wrote:

A-R wrote:Perspective

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not getting in the argument. However, I have an honest question. When a couple cop buddies shared that with me, the thing that popped in my head is that is a two way street. What percentage of the cop contacts turned out to be a citizen that turned on and harmed the cop? What is the percentage of total contacts were cops killed?

I have no idea, nor does it matter for purposes of my answer, which is this (stay with me):

In any police contact, both the cop and the subject(s) want to go home, alive. Who holds the key to everyone going home alive?

Has a subject ever just up and shot a cop with no warning and for seemingly no reason other than cold-blooded murder ( in the immortal words of a Johnny Cash, "just to watch him die") ? Yes, many times (2 NYPD are the most recent high profile example).

Has a cop ever just up and shot a subject in cold blood? Not that I can recall. Law of averages etc., I'm sure at some point it has happened but I honestly can't remember it.

When do most deaths occur in contact between cop & subject? When the subject resists, by fight or flight. Therefore, the SUBJECT, not the cop, holds the key to whether both go home alive in the vast majority of incidents.

I keep hearing cops should be held to a higher standard - they are. Cops must anticipate and react, appropriately, reasonably, legally, and within policy to an action that the subject starts and controls.

Perspective

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Yes it does, but it's 90% hype by those who sell body armor for the purpose of selling more body armor. Dupont has tested 30 year old body armor and it functions just like it did the day it was made. It does deteriorate if it gets wet and sweat will cause it to deteriorate over time. If it's sealed so it doesn't get wet it doesn't deteriorate. Merely being exposed to the air doesn't result in deterioration. I have some and it is sealed in a moisture proof liner. As long as the liner remains intact and doesn't admit moisture it will be fine.

The funny thing is, your contention that it's a liability issue is more of an argument that officers should buy their own body armor to relieve the department of that liability --or that the department provide a stipend for officers so they can buy their own armor. The department incurs all kinds of costs by issuing it themselves, and IF there is any liability, that too. It would be more cost effective to provide officers with an allowance and have them buy their own body armor. As it is now some departments buy new armor to replace armor that was never even worn and hence does not need to be replaced. A complete waste of money. But hey, just tax dollars, and someone may have a brother-in-law that sells body armor.

Well as long as 30-year-old body armor has the VMI77 seal of approval

I've actually seen expired body armor stop rounds larger and faster than it was rated to stop before expiration. And if you want to wear expired armor to a gunfight, by all means go ahead. But if you want to mandate someone enter a gunfight (police have a duty to act) then you have a moral obligation to provide them with the best equipment for that dangerous job. If and probably, even likely, are not words I want to hear when choosing a life saving device. Would you board a plane that has a 90% chance of completing the flight and landing safely?

Come on, get real.

mojo84 wrote:How would anyone know they didn't do CPR like they said if it wasn't for the video?

You're missing the point. CedarParkDad is desperately trying to find some reason Slager should've been charged or suspended BEFORE the video surfaced (as if the lack of any action against Slager prior to video release somehow proves the logical fallacy that without video there would be no charges against Slager ever). My point was that in the 48 hours between shooting and video release was not adequate time to develop probable cause of wrongdoing the old fashioned way. Doesn't mean probable cause wouldn't be developed in due time without video. Just means patience is required - something CPD obviously doesn't have.

Whether or not investigators could prove Slager lied about CPR without the video is meaningless. They could and would have proved he lied (we assume, no one has yet read his as-yet unreleased report) about the details of the shooting.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And thats the problem. Without the video nothing would have been done and both these guys would have gotten off scott free.

And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law.

Lying in your report about attempting CPR is not cause to suspend them? is that the standard you want the public to expect from the police? You're digging a hole thats mighty deep.

Mighty petty gripes mean that call for DOJ oversight nationally is growing.

You're rehashing the same argument. There is no verifiable way for you to claim "nothing would've been done" without the video. Basically a false dilemma logical fallacy with a bit of correlative fallacy thrown in.

"Lying on your report about CPR" ... do you not understand that you can't take action against someone based in information you don't yet know? How between 9:30 Saturday and the release of the video on Monday was anyone supposed to KNOW that they didn't perform CPR? Geez, your standard is that unless an investigator is omniscient then their investigation is bogus and only video can show the truth.

Investigations TAKE TIME. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on. The video helped immensely to speed up the process (as I've said repeatedly) but without the video the truth would've been revealed in due time.

Try some decaf

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I don't believe them. Since nothing was public before the video hit, the burden is on them to produce proof they were doing something. Was the cop suspended? Was the other cop suspended? Has the other cop been suspended even now?

Since you're being pithy about timelines, here's one back for you. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law. Stop demanding law enforcement put the cart before the horse just because they're investigating one of their own. The shooting happened 9:30 am Saturday April 4. The video was released Monday and Slager was arrested and charged Tuesday. There wasn't time to build a case based on the physical evidence and inconsistencies. The video release beat SLED to the punch.

You're grasping at straws with your petty gripes now.

Your oft-posted "law enforcement is safer now" diatribe is simplistic and biased use of basic statistics that doesn't take into account countless societal advances (medical, for example) that make ALL jobs safer now than 100 years ago. Regardless, it's beside the point.

You can call my original moral basis question whatever logical fallacy you want. But if you'll read back through the thread you'll see that the question discussed at the time in the thread was a budget analysis of body cameras and I brought up the point that with departments that cannot even afford body armor (and later discussed cannot afford firearms) how can we in good conscience mandate they pay for the vastly more expensive system of body cams (and associated technology & storage costs)?

Then CedarParkDad and later you came right out and said you believe body cams are more important than body armor. You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally acknowledge that cops should be provided body armor, firearms, and body cams. Certainly a much more morally defendable argument than body cams instead of body armor.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants

You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If appreciating the Bill of Rights as a priority over "safety" then color me guilty, and gladly.

So the only way to abide by the Bill of Rights is with body cams and without body armor?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote: PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.

I'm going to regret answering this, but your assertions are so devoid of reality that I can't allow them to stand.

Of course he wasn't charged nor fired. State police had suspicions, not probable cause. They planned to investigate the inconsistencies. The video helped immensely and sped up the process of establishing probable cause. Without the video they still could've established PC with evidence, ballistics etc. Doing so just takes longer. Is your attention span so short that you're demanding video of all police critical incidents just so charges will be filed in an hour like a "Law & Order" episode?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants

You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants over an officer's physical safety and quite possibly his/her life. Seems both of you would rather see video of an officer shot and killed than to have an officer alive with a slug in his vest but no video to quickly and easily "prove" how nor why.

If you'd said we want body cameras AND body armor, then there would be no issue and no labeling. But you both willfully and seemingly happily announced your twisted logic.

Go ahead and spin this and pontificate all you want. I'm done. Should've stayed out earlier - my mistake.

PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

MechAg94 wrote:The problem is that even if you set a "safe distance" of 25 or 30 feet, someone recording might still be standing on evidence in a crime scene or worse, inadvertently kicking it around. I would say the cop shouldn't arrest you, but they should have the authority to demand you move further away or point out a boundary.

And if you refuse to move?

A lawful command without the potential of a lawful arrest behind is merely a bluff. This ain't poker. The safety and integrity of a police scene is not a game.

Just happened upon this video today and it fits the themes discussed in this thread. How many of you would feel safe if you were the first and only officer on this scene? (And for clarification, this happened in Atlanta, the female subject was intoxicated (0.17 BAL), and under Texas law there are at least three arrestable offenses: Trespassing, Public Intoxication, DOC-Language. Officer was extremely patient and gave her ample warning and opportunity to just leave and avoid arrest. The guy filming ( brother) starts spouting off while videoing , getting WAY too close to arresting officer, and actually attempting spur others to "do something" (to interfere with the arrest ???) He's lucky he did not also get arrested, but officer was too busy trying to cuff the drunk lady to even tell him to back up.

Links to LiveLeak violate Rule 17.