What's Wrong With American Cops?
Discussion
spitsfire said:
XJ Flyer said:
Going by the previous discussions here there's a reasonable chance that it wouldn't have been seen as a 'routine' job and would probably have involved more police all well armed taking a very cautious approach based on the idea that the call might just as easily involve someone who was armed and dangerous as being 'routine'.The fact is in the States that paranoia has always been there amongst US law enforcement and often with good reason.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPU5BF1x3s8
But if it obviously a high-risk call out, why weren't armed officers used? That suggests either a massive cock-up, or else it was just a normal callout, in which case your argument falls over anyway. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPU5BF1x3s8
Either way, I'd rather not be policed by 'paranoid' officers carrying guns. As the previous bit was getting into jumpiness + firearms does not end well.....
The massive cock up seems to me that the uk police are seen by the public as mainly a type of force more in keeping with the level of risk faced by traffic wardens than front line police who could actually be dealing with someone asking for directions or giving a member of the public a crime number for a small burglary attempt in some cases,or someone armed to the teeth intending to kill them in another with no way of knowing for sure until they get involved.The question is should the public expect two unarmed WPC's to have to walk up to the front door of a house on the basis that it's probably the second example when there's even the slightest chance that it might be the third one.That's probably the difference between UK policing and US.
smegmore said:
La Liga said:
t brings a few agencies together under the same umbrella, which can be positive. I think there's a degree of politics involved of "showing we're doing something", and something "new" is always a way to try and do that.
I believed there are new powers to actually compel the police to help them rather than just ask.
Thanks for the clarification. I believed there are new powers to actually compel the police to help them rather than just ask.
The important parts are intelligence, surveillance, development and investigation, which will take up the bulk of their time.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
t brings a few agencies together under the same umbrella, which can be positive.
Sir Humphrey said it gives opportunity for a new layer of 'coordinating management'.XJ Flyer you don't think US police may use this:
http://www.armeddefense.org/Resources/Pictures/Art...
http://www.fightsecrets.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
Some British police Trainers seem to be quite keen on it.
http://www.armeddefense.org/Resources/Pictures/Art...
http://www.fightsecrets.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
Some British police Trainers seem to be quite keen on it.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 15th October 18:04
One benefit of the Taser is no stray bullets taking out unfortunate bystanders:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Sounds terrible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Sounds terrible.
XJ Flyer said:
The massive cock up seems to me that the uk police are seen by the public as mainly a type of force more in keeping with the level of risk faced by traffic wardens than front line police who could actually be dealing with someone asking for directions or giving a member of the public a crime number for a small burglary attempt in some cases,or someone armed to the teeth intending to kill them in another with no way of knowing for sure until they get involved.The question is should the public expect two unarmed WPC's to have to walk up to the front door of a house on the basis that it's probably the second example when there's even the slightest chance that it might be the third one.That's probably the difference between UK policing and US.
3 officers were killed by firearm in 2012 in the UK. Between 2004 and 2011, 2 officers died. The probability of the example you use happening is very, very, very small. Without intending to belittle the memory of those, or any other, officers who've died in service, there is a greater probability of a serving officer being hit by lightning than being killed with a firearm. So whilst there is a 'slightest chance', there is the slightest chance that many unfortunate events might occur. It's not just a question of whether the events might occur, it's the likelihood of them occurring we should consider.
People in the US respect and fear the police, but ask anybody who's been stopped by a US cop and heard the 'keep your hands up, and turn around SLOWLY' line whether they co-operated because they respect the cops, or because they fear getting shot. It might be both, but I know which one will be in the front of their mind! I'd rather not have a police force that most of the population fears. Call me soft, but I think it's preferable to the alternatives.
Edited by spitsfire on Wednesday 16th October 00:53
As I see it, there are good and bad officers on both sides of the Atlantic!
However, in the UK, Officers do not tend to have to anticipate that everyone they stop/deal with may be armed with a gun and the possible risks that that entails, so they can approach situations in a slightly more relaxed condition than their American counterparts.
Take a drugs bust for example: In the UK, when the Police raid a house, they pretty much know that the risk of being shot at is minimal.
In the USA though, the Officers are aware that it's a very real possibility, not just in the occasional raid, but all of them, and so they have to approach it much more cautiously!
In this heightened state unfortunately, it's a lot easier for things to go wrong - For example, a suspect who refuses to do as told, who keeps approaching an Officer with a weapon having been told to drop it! - What do you do? You got your gun out and you're telling him to drop it but he keeps coming at you, looking aggressive. Do you keep asking him politely to put the weapon down? - Do you shoot him?
If you're too wishy-washy about how you deal with this situation and dither about making a decision, chances are, if you're lucky, you just end up injured. If you're unlucky, you end up dead!
It's the same situation with traffic stops.
In the UK, what are the chances of an Officer having to deal with someone with a loaded gun during a routine traffic stop?
In the USA, the chances are massively higher and the Police cannot afford to be casual about any traffic stop because it could easily cost them their life!
They have to approach any vehicle in a defensive frame of mind to limit the risk to themselves, just in case.
There are far too many people making judgements about Officers in the USA and how they go about their daily business, who have no idea about how frightening the job can be on a daily basis, or the risks that the officers are put against daily. It's an incredibly stressful job at times that requires a massive degree of self preservation and self control.
They have to deal with all manner of people, many of whom are complete idiots, and some of these idiots are armed!
At the end of the day, just how hard is it to do exactly what a Police officer tells you? - Not that hard really!
As for the Thread title: "What's wrong with American Cops?"
I'd say the main thing is: they're scared!
They're scared that one lapse in concentration, or giving the wrong person the benefit of the doubt could end up costing them their lives!
Unless you do the job that they do yourself, and understand the experiences that they or their colleagues have had to deal with, along with all the stresses, then I'd say you cannot pass judgement on them as you have absolutely no idea how frightening the job can be!
However, in the UK, Officers do not tend to have to anticipate that everyone they stop/deal with may be armed with a gun and the possible risks that that entails, so they can approach situations in a slightly more relaxed condition than their American counterparts.
Take a drugs bust for example: In the UK, when the Police raid a house, they pretty much know that the risk of being shot at is minimal.
In the USA though, the Officers are aware that it's a very real possibility, not just in the occasional raid, but all of them, and so they have to approach it much more cautiously!
In this heightened state unfortunately, it's a lot easier for things to go wrong - For example, a suspect who refuses to do as told, who keeps approaching an Officer with a weapon having been told to drop it! - What do you do? You got your gun out and you're telling him to drop it but he keeps coming at you, looking aggressive. Do you keep asking him politely to put the weapon down? - Do you shoot him?
If you're too wishy-washy about how you deal with this situation and dither about making a decision, chances are, if you're lucky, you just end up injured. If you're unlucky, you end up dead!
It's the same situation with traffic stops.
In the UK, what are the chances of an Officer having to deal with someone with a loaded gun during a routine traffic stop?
In the USA, the chances are massively higher and the Police cannot afford to be casual about any traffic stop because it could easily cost them their life!
They have to approach any vehicle in a defensive frame of mind to limit the risk to themselves, just in case.
There are far too many people making judgements about Officers in the USA and how they go about their daily business, who have no idea about how frightening the job can be on a daily basis, or the risks that the officers are put against daily. It's an incredibly stressful job at times that requires a massive degree of self preservation and self control.
They have to deal with all manner of people, many of whom are complete idiots, and some of these idiots are armed!
At the end of the day, just how hard is it to do exactly what a Police officer tells you? - Not that hard really!
As for the Thread title: "What's wrong with American Cops?"
I'd say the main thing is: they're scared!
They're scared that one lapse in concentration, or giving the wrong person the benefit of the doubt could end up costing them their lives!
Unless you do the job that they do yourself, and understand the experiences that they or their colleagues have had to deal with, along with all the stresses, then I'd say you cannot pass judgement on them as you have absolutely no idea how frightening the job can be!
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-b...
The Herberts have got too much Thyme on their hands?
From compost to compensation in one 53 mile car ride?
The Herberts have got too much Thyme on their hands?
From compost to compensation in one 53 mile car ride?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/...
It's a bit like a stroke victim walking around with a white stick?
It's a bit like a stroke victim walking around with a white stick?
TC99 said:
A rather different history than that of the UK.
Yes, as with all nations.....but assuming you were making some point relevant to the thread - maybe suggesting that this history you allude to dictates current behaviour - then our own nations background is equally grubby, just in slightly different ways, and I don't think your point (if that's what it is) has any real validity... and Schools. Here is one were American teacher, principal, school governors, police officer and judge get it so badly wrong I'm frankly staggered this could happen in a supposed civilised country.
"Christian Stanfield, was being bullied on a regular basis. He used a tablet to make an audio recording of the bullies for the purpose of showing his mother how bad it was. She was shocked, and she called school officials to tell them what was going on. The officials brought in a police lieutenant — but not to deal with the bullies. Instead, the officer interrogated Stanfield and made him delete the recording. The officer then threatened to charge him with felony wiretapping. The charges were later reduced to disorderly conduct, and Stanfield was forced to testify before a magistrate, who found him guilty. Stanfield's mother said, "Christian's willingness to advocate in a non-violent manner should be championed as a turning point. If Mr. Milburn and the South Fayette school district really want to do the right thing, they would recognized that their zero-tolerance policies and overemphasis on academics and athletics have practically eliminated social and emotional functioning from school culture."
http://benswann.com/exclusive-update-mother-of-spe...
Top lawyer explains in Washington post why the conviction is also bulls
t
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira...
"Christian Stanfield, was being bullied on a regular basis. He used a tablet to make an audio recording of the bullies for the purpose of showing his mother how bad it was. She was shocked, and she called school officials to tell them what was going on. The officials brought in a police lieutenant — but not to deal with the bullies. Instead, the officer interrogated Stanfield and made him delete the recording. The officer then threatened to charge him with felony wiretapping. The charges were later reduced to disorderly conduct, and Stanfield was forced to testify before a magistrate, who found him guilty. Stanfield's mother said, "Christian's willingness to advocate in a non-violent manner should be championed as a turning point. If Mr. Milburn and the South Fayette school district really want to do the right thing, they would recognized that their zero-tolerance policies and overemphasis on academics and athletics have practically eliminated social and emotional functioning from school culture."
http://benswann.com/exclusive-update-mother-of-spe...
Top lawyer explains in Washington post why the conviction is also bulls
thttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira...
Edited by Martin4x4 on Wednesday 16th April 21:17
Imagine if somebody tried this in America he would be face down and facing a cavity search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjY-PHvL4c
Harsh but fair there La Liga.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff