3
292

[–] Wargasm 3 points 292 points (+295|-3) ago 

I understood the risks of war when I enlisted as an infantryman. Police officers should understand the risks in their jobs when they enroll in the academy, as well. That means knowing that personal safety can’t always come first. That is why it’s service. That’s why it’s sacrifice.

This is a very well written article with very good points and real-world examples of why the current police mentality is so very wrong.

I wish I could upvoat more than once.

0
71

[–] AlkaiserSoze 0 points 71 points (+71|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I always thought it was weird when people defend the police by saying "Oh they have a difficult job and must protect themselves." Okay, but don't they choose to go into that job? What are they achieving by neutralizing every situation with violence? I mean, the end up creating situations that end up requiring a violent response because of their nature to use violence in the first place. They need violence because they're creating situations which require it. In short, they are the instigators, just as the US was early in the war with their approach to the Middle-East. This article is the first time I've ever seen it put so eloquently.

EDIT:

Turns out BioHazard (https://voat.co/user/Biohazard), who posted some downvoated comments in this thread, is a verified LEO. This isn't a scandal, really, but this isn't exactly a nice thing to do : https://voat.co/v/ProtectAndServe/comments/330721

Granted, we won't ever know what those comments said and since he/she is a mod in /v/protectandserve it his his/her right to delete whatever they see fit. However, it does make you look like an asshole that is continuing to perpetrate the common practice of gagging vocal opponents of your chosen profession.

3
25

[–] PushYourself 3 points 25 points (+28|-3) ago 

They are the aggressors. This is why I cannot feel bad for cops killed in the line of duty. If you walk around terrorizing people, you're going to get a gun pointed back at you. Deescalation is ideal. A gun has no business on the scene of a nonviolent crime.

0
7

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Exactly. It isn't like they are drafted. And they won't be court marshaled or probably even given time off for simply not going into a dangerous situation. So just walk away if you are pissing your pants in fear. Let someone else do it. Or quit your job entirely, because you know you don't have what it takes do it properly, since people are going to get hurt as a result of you being a coward.

/rant over

13
-8

0
25

[–] Elys 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

I figured this out in Iraq in 2010. We were doing an event that put Iraqi children in wheelchairs, and since I spoke a little Arabic, they put me on bus detail, clearing Iraqi parents and children through checkpoints and bussing them to the center where they would get fitted into wheelchairs. As the mother of a young boy showed me a wallet sized photo of her husband, dressed in a police uniform, and explained to me how he died in 2008, it clicked. I was there to protect these people. Soldiers have to be ready to give their lives for their country, but Iraq 2010 was a unique war with a unique mission, and my job was to be ready to lay down my life for innocent Iraqis the same as I would for an American. At the time, I likened it to stateside police, because that's what the police are supposed to do: resolve violent events at risk of their own lives to protect the lives of others. Until I read this article, I thought that was basic police ideology. It's terrifying to think an innocent American is in more danger around a cop than an innocent Iraqi around an invading foreign Soldier.

0
11

[–] Grospoliner 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think one of the driving factors is exactly the point brought up in the article. Cops are being allowed to shoot first. Military ROE usually demands that only proportional force be used to address threats and that usually means getting shot at first.

0
6

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I watched a documentary on some texas police force where the commanding officer said "Your number one responsibility is your own safety" and that kind of bothered once I thought about it. I mean, that certainly isn't the rule for any other public service like firefighters. When I interact with police I interact absolutely no differently than I would if I were speaking to an enemy soldier who was occupying my town. Apparently that is what they want.

0
5

[–] TheManWhoLaughs 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I was actually in a Criminal Justice course about a year ago with another fellow soldier and Iraq war vet who absolutely defended the position that cops, and soldiers, should always have their weapons drawn and pointed at their targets. I was flabbergasted. He said he did his BCT and AIT at Leonardwood, and was taught this as a standard tactic. He didn't know that I was also a former soldier, as I didn't feel the same need to boast about my experiences as he did, and became absolutely irate when I called him on his bullshit. I'm not saying it's beyond possibility that he was taught that, but it's highly unlikely given that every other soldier I've met has been trained to only aim their weapon at a target if they intend to neutralize it.

1
5

[–] Rusti 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

No worries, you'll stay up here.

0
0

[–] merton 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sorry but isn't is how the US military also approached the Iraq war? In doubt, shoot first, your safety comes first.

1
102

[–] brontide 1 points 102 points (+103|-1) ago 

It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.

W.T.F. you are the police you have the right to action if and only if you have REASONABLE belief that a crime has occurred. Since a single phone call TO THE OWNER/MANAGEMENT would have been the only investigation necessary this is insane. It's also a possible squatter, not the unibomber. There was no complaint of noise or damage, just someone sleeping.

0
67

[–] dabork 0 points 67 points (+67|-0) ago  (edited ago)

that delays the apprehension of suspects

Translation: "It's way easier to shoot first and ask questions later because if you stop to ask questions first, you might not get to shoot. All of this equipment isn't going to pay for itself, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the budget committee shrink my budget for next year."

0
25

[–] czakalwe 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

"Let's look busy, everybody! Arrest 'em all, let the lawyers sort them out!"

0
3

[–] Hans_Delbruck 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Or even talking to the security guard when they pulled up

0
0

[–] iamrage 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

W.T.F. you are the police you have the right to action if and only if you have REASONABLE belief that a crime has occurred

To which Earth, or Universe for that matter, are you referring to?

It's shoot first and ask questions later with police now a days. I feel filthy just saying this myself...

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] on_the_nightshift 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think if it was something like a drug deal, and no one got a loaded gun pointed at them, it's still better on the balance than the alternative. I mean, if there's no indication that violence is occurring, why initiate violence? When you have strong community policing, you don't see people getting SWATted for sleeping somewhere they (maybe) shouldn't.

1
66

[–] VivaFrei 1 points 66 points (+67|-1) ago 

This is a fantastically insightful piece...

"This is where Rhoads is wrong. We’ve seen this troubling approach to law enforcement nationwide, in militarized police responses to nonviolent protesters and in fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens. The culture that encourages police officers to engage their weapons before gathering information promotes the mind-set that nothing, including citizen safety, is more important than officers’ personal security. That approach has caused public trust in law enforcement to deteriorate. ... But unfortunately, my encounter with officers is just one in a stream of recent examples of police placing their own safety ahead of those they’re sworn to serve and protect. ...

0
42

[–] czakalwe 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

The lieutenant's opinion that the police actions were "on point" is just another reason for people to mistrust law enforcement. It's not just cases where police break the rules; it's not just cases where police conceal their wrongdoing; it's also cases of law enforcement authorities so detached from reality and public sentiment that they think this sort of action is appropriate.

0
24

[–] voat-simulator 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

I'm a huge advocate for retraining. When the excuse is so frequently, "We were following protocol," maybe you should consider that you have shitty protocol.

0
4

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

They aren't sworn to serve or protect anyone. They should change the motto on their cars to "Obey or Die".

0
47

[–] Kidder 0 points 47 points (+47|-0) ago 

This is a very well written article that highlights two of the problems with the state of U.S. policing: training cops with quasi-military tactics and an us vs. them mentality. I guess a third could be that their quasi-military training is shitty. Pointing a weapon at a civilian to intimidate or control the situation just sounds laughably wrong, as I had the same training as the author in the U.S. Marine Corps. NEVER point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. I wish there were more people writing like this guy, and I wish we had honest and transparent people on the police side of the equation that would dialogue with the people they serve and make necessary changes.

0
38

[–] ClashingPants 0 points 38 points (+38|-0) ago 

Former Marine here, my experience was the same. Never aim a weapon you don't expect to use, that's always been one of the "use of deadly force" commandments. I'm constantly amazed at the "first person shooter video game" mentality that we witness in these multiple reports of excessive police tactics. This doesn't improve public trust.

0
20

[–] Cleverseneca 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

I'm not a Marine, nor ever really even held a gun bigger than a .22 and I know this! Training at summer camp was framed a little differently "never point a gun at another person ever." but the idea that a gun aimed at a person makes for a dead person was very clear.

0
7

[–] rothx 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

in Aus, it's NEVER REMOVE your gun unless you intend to kill.

7
-4

0
4

[–] Biohazard 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Good thing the officer was pointing a weapon at this guy huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl36OIYj5UQ

0
3

[–] Kidder 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Actually, this video would be a great standalone post for discussion. It seems the setup is that some couple with a key to a crappy trailer (probably landlord or property manager, although it seems like a first meeting) asked the police to look into an alleged squatter. They didn't seem to think the squatter was a threat, as the old guy was ready to escort the cop through the trailer. The question we're currently discussing is one of tactics - what should happen next? Knock on the door and wait for a response? Wait for the alleged squatter to leave, and ask him questions outside of the house? Or, as this officer did (identical procedure used in the article we're discussing), go room to room barking orders with a drawn gun? I would be interested in hearing solid thoughts from someone with experience in the field, but my hunch is that option 3 leads to a bunch of violent endings, like the one in your video.

0
1

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

NEVER point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.

There is no reason to believe they didn't intend to shoot them. I'm sure they were salivating over the idea.

0
0

[–] merton 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Can you explain the "never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot"?

Can't it be useful as a deterrant? A bit similarly to bring the a naval fleet near a hot zone, have nuclear weapon ready, etc etc.?

0
0

[–] Kidder 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Sure, I'll give it a try, although I can only speak to the military training side of the equation. In the U.S. Marine Corps, basic weapon handling is hammered into every single person harder than the Lord's Prayer is drilled into every Catholic school kid. 1. Treat every weapon as if it is loaded. 2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. 3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire. 4. Keep your weapon on safe (safety on) until you intend to fire. A violation of any of these rules is about as offensive as dropping your pants and taking a dump in public. Combine this with escalation of force training, which includes that pointing a loaded weapon at somebody is the absolute last step, which is crossed when all other options are gone and you are prepared to take another person's life. Under this training, getting to that last step as a deterrent, or just because an unknown person who might or might not be a squatter might possibly harm you seems extremely reckless. You do raise a good question, which is - how good of a deterrent is it? My training assumed that it is worth sacrificing lives to avoid pointing a loaded weapon at anybody until you are ready to kill them. I'd be interested to hear a logical defense of the other side.

0
35

[–] Ralesblasband 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This story presents a very valuable lesson that everyone should note.

Close and lock your door. If your door is open and unlocked, the police can peek in, and if they have the requisite level of cause to believe a crime is taking place they can enter without a warrant. If the door is closed (and preferably locked) they are not able to enter without a warrant or permission. And if the police come to your door, ever, don't open it unless you see a warrant to enter. Talk to them through the door or a window. Once you open the door you expose yourself to them barging in and claiming you let them in.

Because his door was open a crack and they had a report of a squatter, the police did nothing wrong by entering and arresting him (as much as this makes me sick as a lawyer and an American). The only illegal thing they did was assault, by pointing their guns at him, quite frankly. But it's unlikely, and unfortunate, that they will never be prosecuted for that because of the leeway most use of force policies that most departments provide.

0
16

[–] tylahedras 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

But it's unlikely, and unfortunate, that they will never be prosecuted for that

Well I'm pretty sure if they can get away with murder they can get away with not murder, whatever that entails.

2
2

[–] Cleverseneca 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

does the fact that it wasn't his unit not change anything?

0
6

[–] Ralesblasband 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Nope. Once you lawfully occupy it is your home, basically. Hotel room, apartment, house...so long as you are there legally it's yours.

0
0

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I've asked a cop about this, a friend no less. He told me even in that scenario they can get a warrant in 20 minutes for literally anything over the radio, including people who are pulled over on the road. There is no such thing as "needs a warrant" anymore.

0
1

[–] Biohazard 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Your cop friend is full of crap. There is no warrant that takes only 20 minutes.

Source: been a cop for over 15 years and have personally written dozens of warrants

0
1

[–] Ralesblasband 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Two points.

First, then let them get the warrant. And your lawyer will challenge it at the preliminary heading. Rubber stamp warrants rarely hold up.

Second, and FAR more important, the point of locking your door and not engaging them isn't to keep them from getting a warrant, it's to keep them from using something they see, smell, or suspect as a basis to conduct a further search or as the basis for a warrant. The other reason is that everybody lies, especially cops, and they will say that they saw, smelled, or suspected something if they are allowed in the house, whether they did or didn't. If you don't open the door or let them in, they will not be in a position where their lying can serve as a false basis for a warrant or seizure. Basically, the more restricted their access to you, the harder it is for them to lie because they aren't allowed in the house to purport to see or smell anything!

0
0

[–] rothx 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

yeah I think I'll buy a castle with a moat. Or a large block of land and build a moat. Sad that it comes to this to protect oneself and family.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] ScreaminMime 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Not to mention that they're dressed in all black with their faces covered. Proper 4th Amendment procedures is for THEIR safety as well.

0
9

[–] strbldsnch 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And probably blinding you with flashlights. I had cops jump in front of my car on a dark street, their cruiser parked up the road with its lights off, blinding me with flashlights and yelling at me to stop the car. I thought they were trying to car jack me and tried to go around until I finally saw the cruiser and stopped. They had their guns drawn, yelling at me for not stopping. I told them I had no idea they were police and one says, "So you were just going to run someone over?" And it's like... if someone is trying to car jack me I'm not exactly going to stop. He proceeded to tell me that they were this close to shooting me. All because they thought my music was a bit loud.

0
1

[–] Biohazard 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Where did it say they had their faces covered?

1
23

[–] Ladderjack 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

So. . .they engaged a military-style raid to roust a suspected squatter? I guess I don't need to say it but. . .this is insane.

0
5

[–] physicscat 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

No common sense. They are the opposite of Sheriff Andy Taylor.

0
1

[–] Biohazard 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Burglary suspect

0
19

[–] Kar98 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.

Literally, shoot first, ask questions later.

load more comments ▼ (35 remaining)