On 14 January, eleven police officers were shot in five states in a 24-hour period. 14 officers in all were killed in January of 2011. In 2010, 162 officers were killed in the line of duty, up from 117 in 2009.
The lunatics are running the asylum. We celebrate a gansta culture, laugh at lawlessness, and worship thugs. Then scratch our heads when stuff like this happens.
Like soldiers, cops don’t need our sympathy, they need our support.
When some criminal bum files a lawsuit because somebody put his cuffs on too tight, we need to step up and defend our police department, and even encourage legislators to pass laws narrowing the window of opportunity for such legal frivolities.
A YouTube Viral Video Does Not Tell The Whole Story
I hate when some youtube goes viral because an “innocent protestor” was slammed to the ground by policemen or cuffed and hauled off. Here’s the bottom line folks: a police officer is the law on the scene and must administer justice as the situation warrants. He doesn’t know who you are and all the personalities involved. He just rolled up on the situation and now has to sort it out. Shut your mouth, cooperate and if you’re not a perp you’re on your way. Shooting off your mouth is not going to keep you out of trouble, it just make the situation harder to sort out.
We view these youtubes, like the guy with some sign at an event up in Alaska last year, with full knowledge that the person was harmless. The cops on the scene don’t know that. Anyone could have a knife, a gun or could just be hopped up on meth or some other drug that makes them violent, powerful, and impervious to pain compliance techniques. The police are charged with protecting the public, but they also must protect themselves as much as possible. And yes, they make mistakes, but people acting stupidly and refusing to listen turns a small mistake into a much bigger one.
Cases like Amadou Diallo also go viral. Intellectual luminaries like Bruce Springsteen ask why the cops had to shoot him 41 times? If you believe a perp to be imminently and lethally dangerous, you shoot him, and you keep shooting until he goes down. It’s not like in the movies where you shoot once, or pull a Lone Ranger and shoot the gun out of the perp’s hand. You don’t fire a warning shot and see what happens. If there’s a lethal danger, you put it down.
We now know Diallo was not armed, but the officers on that dark night did not. The officer who yelled “Gun!” made a mistake. That mistake would not have happened had Diallo followed orders and simply raised his hands. The policemen would have frisked him, questioned him and he’s on his way. He could have lived to file whatever complaint or lawsuit he felt was necessary if he thought his rights were violated.
It’s a sad fact of life for people in bad neighborhoods that they may sometimes be stopped. It’s even sadder for the police officer killed in the line of duty and the grieving loved ones left behind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350523/Police-shootings-America-Sudden-wave-sparks-fears-secret-war-cops.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/24/authorities-fear-cops-targeted-officers-shot-hours/?test=latestnews#
I cannot imagine having a job where you have to make split second decisions on an hourly basis with no room for mistakes. I couldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the police represent the "Law" and people tend to resent unjust laws. It seems our lawmakers have no problem sending these men (and women) into the line of fire to enforce unconstitutional laws. That is an issue to take up with the lawmakers.
The majority of what police do is intervene between two people behaving badly, be it a domestic altercation or a robbery, an assault...Not every time an officer intervenes is he stepping on your Constitutional rights.
A healthy respect for law enforcement ensures that everyone goes home to their families.
There may come a day when we are policed by our armed forces, or worse, machines. There is no officer discretion allowed under such circumstances and I promise you there will be far more civillian deaths.
Many departments have teams training military style which frightens the bejesus out of me. I have met some of my husband's coworkers who would willingly participate in endeavors outside the limits of our Constitution, like we saw in Louisiana after Katrina. The vast majority, though, are honest people. Good people who sometimes make mistakes under duress.
My husband is an Oathkeeper. He has sworn allegiance to the US Constitution and I know he will keep that promise.
We debate over topics such as the Drug War, he also believes drugs should be re-legalized, but frankly he doesn't do many, if any, drug arrests. He does have the highest DUI arrest rate, though. He has pulled many a lifeless body from cars that have been struck by intoxicated drivers. It matters to him.
Right after our daughter was born he was on a call, headed to an accident site when a car pulled out in front of him, although he was "lights and sirens", he swerved in order to avoid hitting that car, he remembers seeing the face of a little girl in the passenger seat. His patrol car rolled three times and rested on it's top. I received a call at 7am. It was my husband's Seargeant. He did not know if Michael was alive or dead, just that he was enroute to the hospital. They offered to come and get me but I didn't want to wait. I actually drove past the patrol car that had been reduced to what looked like a ball of wadded up paper. When I got to the hospital no one said anything, the nurse handed me his wedding ring, his badge and his St. Michael medal. The world fell from underneath my feet, I clutched my two week old daughter and shakily walked to where he was. He was alive! He had cuts and bruises and a pretty serious neck injury but he was alive!
A Good Samaritan had found his Bible, which, by the way, was open to the story of the Beggar at the Gate. The only two survivors in that accident...Michael and his Bible. If anyone else had been in that vehicle they would have perished. We celebrate "Flying Pig Day" every September 20th, wherein we do things we normally would not do unless "pigs fly". We also remind him to drive "shiny side up"!
Several months later a fellow officer, John Walsh, a young man who was about to be married, was killed while he was enroute to a call...by a drunk driver.
(cont)
As a police officer, my husband has seen human beings at their most desperate and their most vulnerable. He has seen a mother who accidentally rolled over on her newborn daughter and smothered her. He has pulled an elderly woman from her burning home, He has had to carry the body of a man from his yard as his grown son sat in the front yard and wailed like a little boy. He has carried the bodies of pets off the road to bring to their owners. He has seen marriages violently dissolve. He has seen child abuse and neglect that hurts him to his core. He has seen wretched parents who do not deserve the children God gave them. He has seen the outcome of children with wretched parents who run away, or join gangs or do drugs until they overdose at the age of 19. He comes home once a week to tell me about a young gang kid who was shot, about once a month to tell me about a gang kid who was killed. He has gone on calls where women suffered a late stage miscarriage and cried the moment he walked in our door because the grief was too much.
ReplyDeletePolice are people. My husband is a good man.
I remember when our dear friend was murdered at work, along with four other women. You would have loved her as much as we did. His lament was that she was unable to protect herself against the very REAL evil that exists in this world. There are still men like that, men who want to save everyone, to help everyone. That's why he does it.
About 10 years ago I was arrested for passing out 2nd amendment fliers in the park. He was not an arresting officer but he knew who I was. They all did. I did not resist arrest but I did recite the First Amendment over and over again! (I sued the city and won).
My arrest led to my meeting with my husband...so I can vouch for the fact that not all arrests have a bad ending!
Divine,
ReplyDeleteWell stated. I should have asked you to write this post!
I struggled with the libertarian side of myself with this. You understand what I'm saying but many hard core libertarians and anti-big government types (like me) will protest that I am supporting a police state.
I am not. I am merely saying what you said so much better: Cops are peoples' husbands, wives, mothers and fathers just trying to do a job.
I too have a problem with many of our laws and in how governments employ the police, but that is not the fault of those on patrol.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome on the left will say that cops who take the job know the dangers. What I like to say to them is then that should make you more in awe of them.
ReplyDeleteThere is one leftwing blog I read sometimes that goes out of its way to find things against cops. I posted a list of cops who have gotten killed by criminals but of course he didn't publish it.
It made me mad when he posted a story about a cop who shot and killed a guy and he wasn't a kid either for pointing a garden house nozzle at him from inside a car like it was a gun. Like any amount of training would tell you it was garden hose nozzle. IMO the blame should lay soley on the idiot who pointed that nozzle at the cop.
DT I cannot even imagine what a cop goes through on a daily basis. I have a friend who is a cop in NYC and he has told me a thing or 2that any of us faint of heart could never handle.
One time I was on line n a store with my mom and the guy in front of us had NYPD on hus jacket and my mother asked him where he worked and he said when you flush your toilet where it pours out in the South Bronx.
The best answer I can come up with is when someone says something against cops is next time you need help the who are you going to call?
Most Rev, I suggest you get out more. Your limited experience does not mean that the police are less civilized than their predecessors. It is mere anecdotal evidence and does not amount to scientific fact. Further, I do not know where you get your information, but as a gun owner when your life is threatened you ALWAYS shoot to kill. A wounded assailant can still kill you, Sir. That applies to "civilians" and police officers alike. Make sure you kill them so they can't sue you!
ReplyDeleteTwo years ago a man held his estranged wife at knifepoint in the street as he threatened to kill her. Their children watched in terror.
My husband's fellow officer shot and killed the man as he was cutting his wife's neck. She sued the department. Go figure!
Most law enforcement officers are good and decent people, who always do their best to ensure that we live in an orderly society. Let us recall that law enforcement is always “after the fact” of a crime. We do not arrest people for murder, or assault, until after the assault. In this sense, law enforcement officers “clean up the mess” afterwards. As with any organization, there are people who should never carry a badge —more a reflection on police administration and institutional leadership than it is upon those who go in harm’s way on a daily basis.
ReplyDeletePeople like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton live for the next white police on black suspect event; it is better than having to pay for commercials. There is no question that we should lament the shooting death of anyone, police officer or suspect, but as Silverfiddle points out, bad things must be the result when criminals make bad decisions.
We should wonder why school districts require the presence of armed campus police officers. We can only conclude that we aren’t living in Oz after all. The world really is a dangerous place. I wonder, though, why we are so keen to focus our attention on police brutality or excessive force, while ignoring the fact that parents and school districts provide ad nauseam do-overs. What if we suddenly began teaching our children that there really are consequences, and that some times, the world isn’t fair?
Unfortunately my interactions with the police have follow closely with the reverend's. Only 2 weeks ago while having lunch at Chipotle with my brother we saw this exact attitude. There were 2 officers having lunch and an elderly woman approached them and asked for help as her husband was having troubles of some sort outside. You would not believe the complaining and just generally awful way they treated that lady. It took both me and my brother by surprise. If I dealt with people that way in my job, I would surely find myself unemployed in short order.
ReplyDeleteSilver I am kind of torn on this topic. I fully support having strong law enforcement, but I also know that they are in a position of responsibility and power over the general population that can lead to abuse. The citizenry being able to take video and document law enforcement doing their job is, in my mind, a good thing. If an unarmed individual is killed, then questions do need to be raised. The answer may come back that there was good reason for the officers actions, and that is fine. However, I think it dangerous if we try move away from even being able to ask the question.
Mr. Beardsley, tell you what, next time you are working your third 12 hour shift in a row, after getting the news that your pension is f*cked and you sit down to eat the ONE MEAL of the day let me know where I can bother YOU on your break and we'll see just how pleasant you are. As a matter of fact, what do you do for a living? I would like some free advice on your lunch break. Better than that, get off your lazy, rude ass and HELP ME NOW DAMMIT!
ReplyDelete*wink*
DT-Nuff said
ReplyDeleteOh the good old days when cops knew eveyone's name and they didn't have to worry about who was packing.
The police have a rough, rough job. But we have to be careful. We don't want to worship them. They are first and foremost human beings just like the rest of us. And the police state is just another massive government institution, with all the inherent corruption and stupidity. The police, however, are armed and have immense powers. We have to be very careful with the police state. We shouldn't knee-jerk denegrate them any more then we should knee-jerk venerate them.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Not a cop, but as I was trained, you don't shoot to kill... but you always, always aim for the center of mass, and you always double-tap.
ReplyDeleteGrew up around cops and have had many friends who were cops over the years, both military and civilian. I will say this, the majority of them have Type-A personalities. Which I believe is somewhat of a necessity for the job. That said, the majority were decent people, not all mind you, but most.
Honestly, I think as far as attitude goes, you usually get what you give.
Police are not technically trained to shoot to kill but shoot to "eliminate the threat". What is the simplest way to "eliminate a threat"?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was trained to shoot I was trained to "shoot to kill". Again, a wounded assailant can still kill you!
Jersey says: " And the police state is just another massive government institution, with all the inherent corruption and stupidity."
ReplyDeleteTwo points...First, each police department operates separately under its coordinating jurisdiction, be it city, county, state, etc.. It is not a giant entity. It COULD be if your boy in office has his way, though!
Jersey, if you believe government is inherently corrupt and incompetent then why do you support it at every other turn?
Mr. Beardsley:
ReplyDeleteI too am troubled by all the people being arrested for filming the police. I am also all for citizens oversight boards as long as they don't become a criminal protection society.
Divine, when intelligent people discuss the "police state" we are referring to the entire police state - municiple, county, state, federal, international. I'm not stupid, and I know full well the depth and complexity of the police state.
ReplyDeleteAnd when intelligent people discuss "the government," in the context of entire, national sectors of our society, we mean all the local, state and federal governments of America. I was, after all, making a very broad point.
Yes, each police department operates in it's own jurisdiction.
Duh.
Please. Don't play games like this with me. If there's something I said with which you disagree, then disagree with it. But don't pretend you know more about any given issue than I. If you think I'm stupid, you're a lousy judge of intelligence.
JMJ
Jersey, when one refers to the police state as "a massive government institution" then it must be assumed that individual has less than a keen grasp of the topic. I was helping. In the past you have proven to have a severe lack of understanding of the way things work, hence your "progressivism".
ReplyDeleteDivine... uh... I hate to reveal this to you... but the POLICE ARE A MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION! They pervade every aspect of our executive and judicial government at every level. We even have police to police the police.
ReplyDeleteAs for your strangely laughable personal retort, I can't believe there is a political blogger out there who doesn't understand what people mean by "the police state." Even more, I can't believe there is any reasonably education person that can't grasp abstract contexts for "institutions" and "states."
Either you are playing a rather underhanded semantic game, or you really don't understand these basic abstracts.
JMJ
Again, you obfuscate the issue. Respond to the latter part of my post so we can understand the utter hypocrisy in your belief system. Really. Educate us...
ReplyDeleteThe latter part of your post?
ReplyDeleteYour naive misbelief that I "have a severe lack of understanding of the way things work?"
My alleged belief that "government is inherently corrupt" when all I said was that in any massive institution there are always corruptions and stupidity?
Which "latter" thing are you talking about?
JMJ
"The lunatics are running the asylum. We celebrate a gansta culture, laugh at lawlessness, and worship thugs. Then scratch our heads when stuff like this happens."
ReplyDeleteExactly-- spot on.
Violence against police does seem to be epidemic lately!
"Make sure you kill them so they can't sue you!"
ReplyDeleteThat's a disgusting attitude, even if it's a gag.
What is disgusting, Miss jez, is that you and your repugnant ilk think rapists have more rights than their victims.
ReplyDeleteClimb back into your hole.
Boy oh boy! Imbeciles like little Miss jez here really don't get it, do they? Do you suppose, little Miss jez, that the man that MURDERED my friend and four other women should just go into therapy?
ReplyDeleteGuess what, Miss Priss, I would have killed that wretched F*CK SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY!
People like you are what is wrong with this world. You can be a walking victim if that is your choice, but fools like you will NEVER make MY choices for me.
Okay. I keep coming back to this..
ReplyDeleteMay I ask the Leftie goofballs what their plan is if a man with a gun converges upon them?
Wow. Did I say all that with just nine words?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for your loss DT. I'm not sure that it's the best moment to engage your questions.
Jez, since you are the one who fought to disarm those women and turn them into victims, shouldn't you be busy washing the blood from your hands?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you're talking about, and I don't wish to argue with you.
ReplyDeleteThen, Miss jez, I suggest you keep your big mouth shut on topics you know nothing about.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent people will shoot to kill an assailant and you can sit there and bitch about how it makes you sad as they rape your child. Dolt.
I was commenting on your recommendation to kill someone purely to escape getting sued by them. When you recover from your grief, I suggest you attend to your own big mouth.
ReplyDeleteMy grief! No, goofball. Not grief. You see, pigs like YOU are the reason INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY! EVERY DAY, scumbag!
ReplyDeleteMy friend was murdered three yeras ago, that pain will never go away but if she were able to shoot your little murderous buddy FIRST she would still be here.
When you recover from your ABJECT STUPIDITY perhaps you have a say. Until then STFU.
Pathetic, disgusting people like you who think murderers have more rights than victims really are in for a rude awakening. You see, snivelling, whiney entitlists like you are raped and murdered every day. You will WISH someone like me was there to protect your worthless ass.
You can always go into group therapy with your rapist if he lets you live. Poor guy, his dad never played catch with him!
Oh, and if you don't wish to argue, then DON'T! YOU WILL LOSE.
Putting the emotion aside for a moment, it's useful to contemplate the explosion of violent criminal activity coincided with liberal programs started back in the 60's.
ReplyDeletePeople naively thought we could "understand" them, and make allowances for them because of their race or upbringing, economic circumstances, whatever.
Like almost everything liberals do, it has had the opposite effect.
It does not matter what the impetus is. The end result is the same.
ReplyDeleteIronically, the left has created microcosms of despair, hopelessness, irreponsibility and crime, courtesy of the War on Poverty. They then complete the circle by blaming the environment for the crimes!
The reasons an individual commits crimes does not matter. They should still be removed from society in one way or another.
I recall the story of a "mentally handicapped" boy who violently killed his little sister. "It's not his fault!" the Left cried. "He didn't understand what he was doing!"
All the more reason to lock him up and bury the key.
Lest we forget, too, that the many violent crimes are committed by parolees who are desperate not to go back to prison!
ReplyDeleteRapists! Murderers! Child molesters! If a Good Samaritan had been able to shoot to kill those thugs in the first place...well, you know the rest!
Even if you are fortunate enough to kill the wretched, wretched beasts, their "family" sues! *rolls eys*
It's almost as if vigilante groups violently dishing out vigilante justice are a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteMost people who favour relaxed gun control mount their argument based on the notion of self defence. You're confusing this with revenge and instant justice, approaches which are much less defensible.
That is interesting to ponder Silverfiddle, but I am reluctant to infer causation from correlation. As an example, I've read a most sincere paper that lays the blame for increased violent crime at the feet of vaccination. As a cautious fellow, I won't dismiss that work completely out of hand; but I'll come pretty close. A priori, I find the idea absurd.
Which liberal programs do you have in mind? Do you have any explanation for America's unusually (for developed nations -- other nations which also adopted liberal programs I think) high homicide rate?
The simple answer to your question is that we are a more violent society. I leave it to the social scientists to explain why.
ReplyDeleteI wrote this awhile back, and it has a link to a Thomas Sowell article that explains the point I am making.
http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2009/12/liberalism-kills.html
My gun argument rests upon a free person's God-given right to property and self-protection. Here in the US those rights are protected by the US Constitution.
Vigilante justice? You really are that stupid. Killing an assailant before he can kill you is hardly that. Nice try. Do YOU have any reason for Canada's HIGH rates of violent crime? Oh right, your ilk won't allow people to protect thmselves!
ReplyDeleteWith regard to America's murder rate, you need look no further than the violence in the ghettos. If the likes of you were inclined to look past your schnoz, that is.
You cannot be that obtuse. Actually, I think maybe you can.
Hi
ReplyDeleteI skimmed Sowell's page you linked for data and references but couldn't find any -- did I miss them? Meanwhile, I disagree with his conclusions, due to this meta-analysis on recidivism statistics: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm .
"God-given right to property and self-protection" is a much more effective tack than "don't let them sue you."
"With regard to America's murder rate, you need look no further than the violence in the ghettos."
Thing is, I think you do have to look further than that. For example, I notice that the poverty rate (a useful proxy for ghetto population? perhaps not...) is not at all proportional to the homicide rate.
You're looking for causation where none may exist. Locking up criminals reduces crime. Shooting someone in my house and killing them is preferable to them killing me or my family. That also reduces crime.
ReplyDeleteSowell's point is not that liberalism causes crime, but rather their theories about how to reduce crime have failed and have no basis in reality.
Locking them up and confronting them with a God-given right to self-defense reduces crime.
"Locking up criminals reduces crime."
ReplyDeleteWhile they're inside, yes. Prison does not affect recidivism, or may make it slightly worse.
So prison's a good idea for long sentences, but might be a slightly bad idea for short sentences.
"Shooting someone in my house and killing them is preferable to them killing me or my family."
Sure, but shooting to kill just so that they won't be able to sue you is not. A cop who plays it that way (to be clear, this is shooting to kill where it is not necessary to neutralise the assailant) is a menace and should be sacked and punished.
jez, forgive me but I truly do not suffer fools gladly. I am being as polite as I can.
ReplyDeleteI assure you, young lady, that police do not join the force to kill indiscriminately. They are trained to eliminate the threat. Take it for what it's worth.
With regard to your ridiculous quote about the
'poor being a useful proxy for the ghetto population", I cannot begin to approximate your naivete. I suggest you study the demographics of the cities with the highest murder rates. Check out the number of public housing communities in those areas. I think the reason you are in denial is because your policies created those crime zones.
DT, my original comment was in answer to your remark "make sure they're dead so they can't sue yoy!" I hope you can see how that's open to my disgusting interpretation.
ReplyDelete"I think the reason you are in denial is because your policies created those crime zones."
ReplyDeleteWhat policies are you thinking of. (And if you think I'm a young lady [I'm neither], how can you hold me responsible for decades-old policy decisions? I don't mind your rudeness, but at least be consistent!)
I think ghettos, whether they are racial or economic, are evidence of failed policy.
jez, you need to change your diet. That much stupid cannot be good for you.
ReplyDeleteIf you support the policies that created the Welfare State it doesn't matter how old you are, you are responsible for it. Simple.
I will never understand how one can grow older but not wiser...and you write like a naive little girl.
If that means that I don't go about recommending that you kill people for convenience, then I'm OK with that.
ReplyDelete