TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Maybe you just know different cops from the ones I know but I know plenty of officers that would fit in that painting.

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

gigag04 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

So THAT'S what causes the rub between cops and firemen!!

Love that old Norman Rockwell stuff.

gigag04 wrote: Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

And just exactly how does that make you feel?



Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

gigag04 wrote: Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

And just exactly how does that make you feel?



Anygunanywhere

As a former LEO, one who got quite a few "Good Time" letters, I REALLY don't like it.

VMI77 wrote:
This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Keith B wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

So THAT'S what causes the rub between cops and firemen!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEro1DoG2LQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Not embedded due to language/content/and over all shadiness...but I find these hilarious.


My zone partner and I started clearing calls by telling people to spay and neuter their pets and stay in school.

gigag04 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Because everytime cops walk into a restaurant parents point and say "Imma have that police take you away if you don't behave" and kids are taught to have an irrational fear of cops from a young age. Meanwhile, they take their kids to the fire station and let them play on the trucks...

That's certainly part of it, but it's a chicken and egg thing. The police just don't act the same way they did 40 years ago. I know a DPS officer who retired because he didn't like the way things are going. One problem is that the fear of cops is becoming less and less irrational. Forty years ago a cop would tell a teacher complaining about an NRA t-shirt on a student to get a grip, now they all too often facilitate such irrational behavior. It varies with geography and population density --which is partly a function of the political atmosphere. The stakes are higher too --40 years ago the system didn't set out to ruin the life of a 15 year old because he wore the wrong t-shirt, and the police facilitate and participate in this lunacy to everyone's detriment, including their own. I don't mean to suggest there is anything simple about it, there is a complicated dynamic influenced by many factors changing for the worse.

SQLGeek wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Maybe you just know different cops from the ones I know but I know plenty of officers that would fit in that painting.

Yeah, but that's not the issue. When the painting was made it was a general statement and changing times have made it more specific. My son, for instance, would fit that image if he had decided to pursue a LE career after completing the police academy. So would his friends who are cops --because, for one thing, he wouldn't have any other kind of cop as a friend. I know a couple of old cops who quit being cops because they didn't like the way things are headed. I can see the change in public perception over about the last 15 years. Look at the comments following various articles about situations like this.....15 years ago they were largely supportive of the police, now they're not, and many of those expressing their concerns are white middle class people who believe in the rule-of-law and generally respect lawful authority. I'm ex military --I don't have a problem with lawful authority, but my perception is that there is a lot more "unlawful" authority being exercised these days than there used to be.

VMI77 wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.

Maybe you just know different cops from the ones I know but I know plenty of officers that would fit in that painting.

Yeah, but that's not the issue. When the painting was made it was a general statement and changing times have made it more specific. My son, for instance, would fit that image if he had decided to pursue a LE career after completing the police academy. So would his friends who are cops --because, for one thing, he wouldn't have any other kind of cop as a friend. I know a couple of old cops who quit being cops because they didn't like the way things are headed. I can see the change in public perception over about the last 15 years. Look at the comments following various articles about situations like this.....15 years ago they were largely supportive of the police, now they're not, and many of those expressing their concerns are white middle class people who believe in the rule-of-law and generally respect lawful authority. I'm ex military --I don't have a problem with lawful authority, but my perception is that there is a lot more "unlawful" authority being exercised these days than there used to be.

Part of the problem I see is that people jump on the anti LEO bandwagon with no facts. We have an anonymous person claiming this through an attorney with no supporting evidence. Everybody takes the bait and it spreads like a fire. Where is the arrest report or affidavit? While it may have happened, it may not and could be a typical ploy to play a case in the media.

Its the militarization of the police. In my youth SWAT teams weren't used for arrests. They didn't even have SWAT teams. Police looked like police not military in different uniforms. There wasn't the kick type search and arrests, or at least if there were, it was only for really bad criminals.
I don't blame the police for this. There are forces working on them like everything else. But the more militarized you get the more perception changes from "protect and serve" to "occupier." When I lived in L.A. depending on the area the vibe was extreme.

On the plus side I'm happy that the local constabulary are professional and exihibit the "protect and serve" mantra. Nothing like the wife getting pulled over for a failed tail light, ending with a discussion of advice on where she can get the cheapest replacement lights and a discussion of how she likes her Beretta CC piece...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Its the militarization of the police. In my youth SWAT teams weren't used for arrests. They didn't even have SWAT teams. Police looked like police not military in different uniforms. There wasn't the kick type search and arrests, or at least if there were, it was only for really bad criminals.
I don't blame the police for this. There are forces working on them like everything else. But the more militarized you get the more perception changes from "protect and serve" to "occupier." When I lived in L.A. depending on the area the vibe was extreme.

On the plus side I'm happy that the local constabulary are professional and exihibit the "protect and serve" mantra. Nothing like the wife getting pulled over, ending with a discussion of advice on where she can get the cheapest replacement lights and a discussion of how she likes her Beretta CC piece...

I think you captured most of my thoughts. I have what I consider a healthy skepticism regarding all enforcement agencies. After all, these agencies are the enforcement arm of the government. Why do all local PDs need SWAT, armored vehicles, and drones (Arlington comes to mind)? When I have an encounter with a LEO that is adult, professional, and to the point, then I have respect and trust for THAT officer and a better opinion of the jurisdition in general. I judge each officer on their own merits. My trust does not carry over for all LEOs and all departments. It has to be earned.

texanjoker wrote: Part of the problem I see is that people jump on the anti LEO bandwagon with no facts. We have an anonymous person claiming this through an attorney with no supporting evidence. Everybody takes the bait and it spreads like a fire. Where is the arrest report or affidavit? While it may have happened, it may not and could be a typical ploy to play a case in the media.

I see people jump on sensationalized political views with no facts all the time, so perhaps it can happen with the LEO bandwagon also.. But it happens on both sides - for and against.

Personally, it's not a bandwagon issue. It's that one or two police officers in twenty years that really do a number on you. Regardless of if you get to look down the barrel of their gun, get locked up for something you didn't do, or just get to experience the completely unchecked power of law enforcement that is the initial default, it'll take all doubts away about how much damage a few bad apples can do...

I can't imagine being a minority dealing with an organization like the LAPD, where it wasn't one officer you had to contend with, but an entire "gang".

The reality is that LEOs are the initial line of law enforcement. They are often the judge and jury. You can get justice under the following circumstances:
1) You've got to be able to afford it, win or lose.
2) There needs to be witnesses or some for of documentation such as video / audio. If it's you against a LEO, it's not a tie.. It's you're done.
3) You have a relatively clean record.

IF you're missing any one of those things, you're very disadvantaged. And lets face it, you're not innocent until guilty. You're a criminal until you can afford the kind of defense that results in a not-guilty verdict or an attorney that can talk some common sense into a prosecuting attorney.

I respect law enforcement. I don't think all LEOs are bad. I think the vast majority are good.
However, I *fear* law enforcement tremendously. I recognize that the public is disadvantaged and I need to be very careful about asserting my rights if I don't want to spend a fortune.

I think LEOs should be better paid. They should also be much better qualified and pass some serious psychological screening that the majority of the public shouldn't be able to pass. They should have a rock stable temperament. Trust me, not all fall into this category... From experience.