TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote: So tell me what you think of this police chief's comments and also why there is so much cop hate in this century.

From my perspective after 10 years of wearing the badge, I would say the Chief has every right to express his opinion. That is a right we all have - even those who express their opinion that he may have spoken out of turn. I have heard many officers express the same sentiment. Now, should he have done it publicly? Not in my opinion. He doesn't need to justify the need for officers to expect to survive a tour. But he, as well as every officer who ever swore an oath and put on a badge, was hired to do a job knowing full well the hazards of the occupation.There is an understanding that you can and should do whatever is legal with good judgement while on the job. But in no way does the presence of the badge give an officer the right to never have his judgement or actions questioned. If he expects that, he should have never taken the job in the first place.

Cop hating? If anyone suggested that an increase in "cop hating" by the public has occurred without reason, they would be wrong. The few instances of "bad apples" wearing the badge have contributed greatly to the feeling that most cops cannot be trusted anymore. I would simply offer an example, one of several I was close to, of Sheriff Rick Thompson. Rick was a good friend. When I asked him why he had been caught with a horse trailer with 2 tons of cocaine in it, he looked me straight in the eye and told me he bought it with county money to run a sting operation! When I raised my eyebrows, he laid his hand over his holstered Colt 1911 and said anyone who didn't like it should just deal with it. That man was a good LEO until he decided he could do whatever he wanted with absolute impunity. He destroyed the trust people had placed in him and that mistrust still exists today. Cop hating in that county? You bet.

Another good example would be all the frequent advice on here to never talk to cops - even after a good shoot. It would seem that, even as law abiding as people on this forum are, there is a general feeling that the police are not out to do you any favors. Why that feeling?

As for me, I think cops who are convicted of breaking the law should expect the full force of the law to come down on them, just as it would on anyone so convicted.There must not be a double standard.

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

No.

Anygunanywhere

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

Perhaps the question should be this: How will SWAT respond when the bad guys discover RPG's and Dshk's? Will we see M1 tanks in the streets?

I already voiced my thoughts on the militarization of CIVILIAN police departments. Where does it all end? Do you really want people flying Hellfire-armed Predator drones over our cities and striking the wrong address? I still believe good police work backed up by reliable intelligence can handle 99% of the calls. If folks want to play war, join the Marines and see the world. My opinions, anyway.

nightmare69 wrote:

EMORY, TX (KLTV) - Emory, a city in Raines County, is considering adding new social media policies to their rule book. This comes after the city's police chief took to Facebook to voice his opinion about the termination of the Rains County deputy who shot a dog while responding to a 911 call in April.

http://www.kltv.com/story/25557392/emor ... ty-concern" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


[ Image ]

Seems many citizens believe that cops should not be able to defend themselves until they are dodging bullets, bleeding out from knife wound, or a dog is trying to rip your arm off. I also believe that the deputy made a split second decision that turned out to be wrong. While the media and citizens have months to pick it apart, you may only have a fraction of a second to decide to engage or retreat.

All this "cop hate" is no surprise anymore. People love to hate them until they need them. Sure there are bad cops and good cops who make bad decisions, but the vast majority are good cops who put their life on the line for someone they never met. We rarely hear about those, public only wants the dirt to further fuel their hate and paint all cops with a broad brush do to the actions of a few. Kinda sounds like the same mindset of the anti gunners saying that guns should be outlawed due to the actions of a couple of psychos. Im sure Ill make a plenty of mistakes learning the career that will rub the person Im dealing with the wrong way, oh well Im learning.

I guess this chief had enough from the public voicing their opinion so he voiced his and now the public's jimmies are rustled. A cop exercising his right to freedom of speech is now frowned upon and offensive. I read a comment that cops should not be allowed to carry guns either so they can't hurt or kill any people or animals. Really?

So tell me what you think of this police chief's comments and also why there is so much cop hate in this century.

If I had a very public employee that went on a site and made controversitial statements that would be...bad.

EDIT: Reading the article I saw this:

At one point, Feagin responded to a commenter, saying, “let’s just not respond to calls. They can come to the office to make reports.”

If he were an employee of mine he would now be an ex-employee.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

Perhaps the question should be this: How will SWAT respond when the bad guys discover RPG's and Dshk's? Will we see M1 tanks in the streets?

I already voiced my thoughts on the militarization of CIVILIAN police departments. Where does it all end? Do you really want people flying Hellfire-armed Predator drones over our cities and striking the wrong address? I still believe good police work backed up by reliable intelligence can handle 99% of the calls. If folks want to play war, join the Marines and see the world. My opinions, anyway.

Getting to go through all the operator training and getting the cool ninja toys to play with is a perk of the job. Every swat operator I've ever talked to says its one of the best parts of the job.

If I ever make swat I would want every advantage I could get over the bad guy. I don't want a glock when he has an AK, I want an AK or something better. There is no playing fair in a fire fight, only winning.

jmra wrote:I don't have any issues with LEOs. I do have a problem with someone who shoots a dog for no good reason regardless of what they do for a living.

Non emergency call. This situation could have been resolved in one simple radio call.

"Could you contact the caller and advised that I am on scene, but will be waiting on him to secure his dog. The dog looks somewhat bothered and aggressive, and I haven't even exited my vehicle yet."

Discretion.

nightmare69 wrote: Getting to go through all the operator training and getting the cool ninja toys to play with is a perk of the job. Every swat operator I've ever talked to says its one of the best parts of the job.

If I ever make swat I would want every advantage I could get over the bad guy. I don't want a glock when he has an AK, I want an AK or something better. There is no playing fair in a fire fight, only winning.

With all due respect my friend. Did you ever consider a career in the military? I would expect most police officer candidates want to be an officer so that they can help the communities they serve, not start firefights. Truth is, discharging your weapon at a human being is not as glamorous as some would have you believe.

Someone once said, "The only real advantage we have over the bad guys is what is between our ears." Truth to live by.

It is easy to hate cops not because they make mistakes but because they are almost never held accountable for their mistakes.

No matter how many accidental deaths they cause, they justify it by saying, "At the end of the day I have a family I have to go home to." If your only motivation is to make it home, you shouldn't show up for work at all.

When a person sues a city because of police misconduct. I say the city should not to open its coffers for the multi million dollar payout. The money should come out of police pensions. Then we will really see how fast cops can police their own

nightmare69 wrote:
Getting to go through all the operator training and getting the cool ninja toys to play with is a perk of the job. Every swat operator I've ever talked to says its one of the best parts of the job.

If I ever make swat I would want every advantage I could get over the bad guy. I don't want a glock when he has an AK, I want an AK or something better. There is no playing fair in a fire fight, only winning.

I am not trying to argue or be combative in any way. The portion in bold is exactly what is wrong with much of today's law enforcement attitude. "Playing" with the "cool ninja toys" leads to over utilization of the TOOLS in inappropriate circumstances. In my opinion, if someone is going into law enforcement for the adrenaline rush and the "perk" of getting to play with "cool ninja toys", they need to be in another occupation such as military service or the circus.

I expect people charged with upholding the laws of the land and Constitution to be more mature than overgrown kids.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

nightmare69 wrote: Getting to go through all the operator training and getting the cool ninja toys to play with is a perk of the job. Every swat operator I've ever talked to says its one of the best parts of the job.

If I ever make swat I would want every advantage I could get over the bad guy. I don't want a glock when he has an AK, I want an AK or something better. There is no playing fair in a fire fight, only winning.

With all due respect my friend. Did you ever consider a career in the military? I would expect most police officer candidates want to be an officer so that they can help the communities they serve, not start firefights. Truth is, discharging your weapon at a human being is not as glamorous as some would have you believe.

Someone once said, "The only real advantage we have over the bad guys is what is between our ears." Truth to live by.

Law enforcement was something I always wanted to do. After high school I went to the Air Force recruiter and took my ASVAB and all I needed to do was sign the final papers. I ended up taking a job making a lot more money than I would ever make in the military. The part about getting to do some really cool stuff I've heard from every officer and instructor. So it seems to be one of the perks. I guess all cops to a point are big kids with really expensive toys.

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

They should be as well-armed as the BGs they are trying to apprehend.

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
Getting to go through all the operator training and getting the cool ninja toys to play with is a perk of the job. Every swat operator I've ever talked to says its one of the best parts of the job.

If I ever make swat I would want every advantage I could get over the bad guy. I don't want a glock when he has an AK, I want an AK or something better. There is no playing fair in a fire fight, only winning.

I am not trying to argue or be combative in any way. The portion in bold is exactly what is wrong with much of today's law enforcement attitude. "Playing" with the "cool ninja toys" leads to over utilization of the TOOLS in inappropriate circumstances. In my opinion, if someone is going into law enforcement for the adrenaline rush and the "perk" of getting to play with "cool ninja toys", they need to be in another occupation such as military service or the circus.

I expect people charged with upholding the laws of the land and Constitution to be more mature than overgrown kids.

Getting the ninja toys a is not the main reason people get into LE. If they say it's not a cool part of the job they are a liar. LE is a para military career also. Over half of my class are former or still active reserve military.

anygunanywhere wrote:

chamberc wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Any segment of society that considers themselves above factual criticism are making themselves out to be elitist. LEO bashing is and should be forbidden on this forum. In the same manner we, myself included often bash those we disagree with to one degree or another. In the end, determination of whether or not a statement is bashing is totally subjective.

Anygunanywhere

I would respectfully argue that, on the whole, law enforcement has reached a point of they themselves not understanding that they are CIVILIAN servants- that is, they themselves are civilians that serve other civilians. I was raised in a time gone by where they earned the respect they were given.

I strongly believe that looking at the facts, events show that there is a definite trend towards police being the largest violators of the law. They regularly break traffic laws, violate the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments, and in general ignore the law in the name of false hot pursuit.

Incidents during Katrina, the Boston Marathon, the NYC sidewalk shootings, no knock warrant execution, incorrect warrant execution and numerous poor judgement shootings show us that these civilians with "special rights" have extended into the realm of being a dangerous element in society.

They need to be held criminally and civilly liable for their mistakes and we must enforce the rule of law upon them. That means if it is illegal for citizens to do something, in all cases these "special" civilians should be held to the same standard. And yep, that means they can't carry some weapons, have armored vehicles or drones if other citizens can't.

I am in no way saying all LEO are criminals, but you must definitely see that any citizen that is afforded rights above and beyond other citizens is a danger, and is a lawbreaker themselves. Sadly, in today's LEO ranks, we have a high number of civilians that have the insatiable desire to "be the boss" without the ability to succeed without an artificial grant of authority. These are largely folks who are incapable of succeeding at jobs in other fields, and they seek this artificial power. These ranks are growing, and tarnish the genuine servants in the ranks.

Food for thought from just today's news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -stop.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the post. I doubt if I would use the Daily Mail to back up anything I said.

Anygunanywhere

The story is widely available from other sources. I'd research a story before discounting its applicability.

baldeagle wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

They should be as well-armed as the BGs they are trying to apprehend.

I don't see the fuss about the weapons they use. Semi auto rifles, handguns, body armor are all things a civilian can own. Since I know a civilian who owns a few WWII tanks I'm sure anyone who could afford it could own a MRAP. Federal agents, to my knowledge, are the only LE that can use full auto.

nightmare69 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Should swat and other tactical response teams be allowed to use firearms and equipment not legal for the general public to own? Like full auto weapons, flash bangs, MRAPS etc.

They should be as well-armed as the BGs they are trying to apprehend.

I don't see the fuss about the weapons they use. Semi auto rifles, handguns, body armor are all things a civilian can own. Since I know a civilian who owns a few WWII tanks I'm sure anyone who could afford it could own a MRAP. Federal agents, to my knowledge, are the only LE that can use full auto.

I don't care what weapons they use so long as everyone can use them with the same standards for use and purchase. That being said, they should be bound by the same rules everyone is. If laws restrict usage, there should be no exclusion for LEO. So in states where they have bans on "assault" weapons, the police forces should also be banned from using those weapons.