A thought from a member on the LE threads.

[E4 No More]

When people have one bad teacher, some of them think all teachers are bad.  When they have a contractor or mechanic mess them around, some of them think all contactors or mechanics are bad.  This happens with many professions, but recently police officers have bee in the forefront.  I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why some one in this day and age would want to become a police office.  The lack of respect they receive in the media and from the pubic is deplorable.  Many of the situations that we have seen played out in the media started with people not obeying simple commands from officers.  

 

That being said, we should not turn a blind eye to incompetence, negligence or illegal behavior from any profession.       

Lack of respect isn't exactly a modern phenomenon. It comes with the territory that you accept when you accept the job. The same thing goes with the pay: if you don't like the pay then find another profession!

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think the lack of respect and the distrust of LE came along about the same time officers quit "walking a beat". I don't mean physically walking but being assigned to a certain area and remaining in that area for months or years. That allowed officers to get to know those in his area and show he is approachable. These days officers rotate shifts and rotate zones so it makes it very, very hard for an officer to build a relationship with those in his zone. We do see officers that get out and mingle with the local kids but the vast majority of officers do not and prefer to sit in their vehicle with their windows rolled up. So I believe the mistrust started with the officers and it will take a change in the way the officers actually patrol to fix the problem, if it is fixable at all.

[MphsTiger1981]

I am former LEO here in Memphis, Shelby County Sheriffs Deputy to be exact, and it is disappointing when I see posts that seem to paint all cops with such a broad brush. My brother is still a cop. Just made detective in February and my whole family went to the promotion ceremony. I lack the words to adequately describe how proud we are of him. My parents are both in their eighties and dad has Parkinson's, so getting in and around was hard due to the wheel chair, but his face was beaming when they pinned that new badge on Tim. I know my brother is a guy who does it the right way, every time, that's why he took the job, and still loves the job. Not for the money, or the power trip of the gun and the badge, but he really wants to make a difference and he tries every day to do just that. Another guy in his department is a well known member on TGO. Also one of the stand up guys. If I was ever in a dust up and had to reach for the radio for back up, I would sure feel better seeing Him as the first car on the scene.

I still see a lot of guys I worked with and went through the academy with. Friend of mine had her brains blown out transporting a low risk prisoner that another friend of mine had just patted down and missed a gun in the crotch. He also broke protocol and handcuffed him in the front instead of behind his back. That guy is a raging alcoholic who took early retirement. Two guys I went through the academy with are actually in prison now, both of them did really stupid things involving women. According to the versions I heard, they both got what they deserve. I think the main difference is, if you screw up as a cop, under the Color of Law, you are headed to prison. Not many salesmen or teacher, coaches or other vocations harp on going to prison as much as I heard throughout the entire time I was in training, both at the academy and at in- service each year.


Someone asked a very good question, why don't the good cops get rid of the bad cops? The short answer is generally civil service boards and union. Of course if it gets bad enough for criminal charges, all bets are off. The thing you have to remember, the guy may be the only one who can save your life at some point in time. As a para military organization, the fraternity is close and closed lipped. The old saying was sort of like Vegas before the ads, what happens in the car, stays in the car.

[I am Groot!]

Lack of respect isn't exactly a modern phenomenon. It comes with the territory that you accept when you accept the job. The same thing goes with the pay: if you don't like the pay then find another profession!

I agree that it is not a new phenomena, but in my opinion it rampant. It seems much more culturally expectable. It has become the rule not the exception.

[gregintenn]

I think all of this falls under the general title of "people." The things you bring up here are true enough, but are far from being common only to law enforcement. Different managers are willing to go to different lengths to get rid of a bad apple, as you point out here, but in agencies subject to Civil Service rules and other contracts, it's pretty hard to get away with this stuff. In small agencies having no such rules however, all bets are off. If they aren't subject to labor rules, then the frailties of men tend to rule supreme and that can lead to some pretty obnoxious goings on. In my experience, once you give the authorities power to get rid of the bad apples, then they start using it against the good ones they may not like, so the unions act to restrict this power and provide some job protection. But once you do this, once you deny them this power, then the bad apple goes back to the top of the food chain. So there is no good answer to all this stuff. You just have to do the best you can with what you have to work with and go to work somewhere else if it gets too deep to wade in.

 

As for protecting other cops, nobody wants to be a rat and cops are no different than other people in that regard.  After all, Joe Paterrno covered for a serial child molester for years and he never wore a badge in his life, nor did all the church officials who were deeply steeped in religion and nonetheless covered up the same thing on a massive basis for years..........and it goes on and on and on. "Coverup" is one of the favorite words in journalism when it comes to affairs political as well. A cop after all is a guy who was looking for a job and found one. No special angelic virtues were imparted upon his appointment and he is subject to all the frailties of other men having authority and responsibility.They are expected to live up to a higher standard and most of them do, but some don't and some supervisors and managers don't do their jobs in keeping the bad ones out either. All I can say is it ain't right, it's just the way it is, and you just have to keep on truckin' to make it as right as you can. End of Epistle.

If more people were honest as you, the world would be a much better place. Thank you for your service, and thank you for being a contributing member here. I get sick of police here whining because they get a bit of criticism, which is usually not directed at them in the first place. Police are people. Some of them are simply sorry. That's the way it is. Stick up for them, and you'll likely be lumped into the same category as them.

 

People of other professions get criticized as well. Some deserve it; some don't. That's life.

 

You sir, have my respect, for what it's worth. I wish there were more with your point of view.

[none]

Good post!

I have nothing but respect for LEOs but it is my personal opinion that military grade weapons in the hands of the police are a bad thing, and use of deadly force should always be the absolute last resort when dealing with criminals. The actual number of LEO "bad incidents" is extremely low in a country of our size where every day many, many people are arrested -- they simply make national headlines and create a stir that sells advertising/papers/news/etc. Out of the millions upon millions of LEO interactions every year, there are what, 20? 50? incidents where things went horribly wrong. That ain't too bad --- no one wants to be a victim of it, but no one wants to be t-boned in an intersection either --- crap happens.

There are a few bad LEOs out there. Its not possible to weed out every idiot from every department across this giant country.

Please define "Military Grade" weapons? What level of small arms would be acceptable? Perhaps responding officers should be utilizing beanbags or other less than leathal defense tools? Seems like not too long ago the City of Brentwood officers were forced to respond to a situation and were ill equipped to do so. So who should get to judge. Following that line of logic magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds is a bad idea? Taking it one step further perhaps all agencies should be limited to 22lr revolvers?

Are there bad apples out there? Sure are there a higher percentage of those that truly serve out there yeah there are. How many good things are done that you will never hear about? Watertown comes to mind.


Just my opinion Edited April 24, 2015 by wcd

[EMTRN]

I also am interested in the military grade weapons comment. I work for a smaller department just outside of Memphis. I see AK47's and SKS rifles. I'm glad I have an AR15.

[nightrunner]

Re: military grade weapons

I am in support of law enforcement, local all the way up to federal, to only have weapons that civilians can legally own without tax stamps. Police don't need select fire weapons.

[Pain103]

Re: military grade weapons
I am in support of law enforcement, local all the way up to federal, to only have weapons that civilians can legally own without tax stamps. Police don't need select fire weapons.

I could get behind that with the only possible exception I can think of is shotgun barrel length. Try snatching a 18.5" barreled 870 out of a rack inside a vehicle. The 14" or 16" barrel helps. But I don't say we have to have it but dang it can get snagged up in a pinch. I say do away with the NFA. Just because a a gun shoots more than one bullet in a squeeze of the trigger or has a shorter barrel doesn't make it any deadlier.

[nightrunner]

I could get behind that with the only possible exception I can think of is shotgun barrel length. Try snatching a 18.5" barreled 870 out of a rack inside a vehicle. The 14" or 16" barrel helps. But I don't say we have to have it but dang it can get snagged up in a pinch. I say do away with the NFA. Just because a a gun shoots more than one bullet in a squeeze of the trigger or has a shorter barrel doesn't make it any deadlier.

I certainly don't disagree with that, short barrel shotguns and rifles shouldn't be regulated at all. And cops, aside from SWAT, don't need suppressors or machine guns.

No reason that LE should have what U.S. law abiding citizens cannot.

[Pain103]

I certainly don't disagree with that, short barrel shotguns and rifles shouldn't be regulated at all. And cops, aside from SWAT, don't need suppressors or machine guns.
No reason that LE should have what U.S. law abiding citizens cannot.

I agree. I carry a regular rifle and have no need for more than semiautomatic. I would love some personal toys with shorter barrels and that shoot many rounds in a single trigger pull but have no need for it at work.

[mikegideon]

I agree. I carry a regular rifle and have no need for more than semiautomatic. I would love some personal toys with shorter barrels and that shoot many rounds in a single trigger pull but have no need for it at work.

 

They're never gonna ask me, but I don't have a problem with every LEO being equipped with select fire weapons. If there is ever gonna be combat in the streets, law enforcement will be ass deep in it.

[nightrunner]

They're never gonna ask me, but I don't have a problem with every LEO being equipped with select fire weapons. If there is ever gonna be combat in the streets, law enforcement will be ass deep in it.

To equip them for an improbable event, sure but for the vast majority of officers, fully automatic or even a 3-rd burst is a huge liability in the civilian setting they are in.

[EMTRN]

I carry a semi-automatic rifle, I have no use for full auto. As others mentioned, the practicality of shorter barrels is obvious when working out of a vehicle. I'm curious about the suppressor comment though. You do know they protect hearing and don't make the rifle any more deadly, right? I don't know of any officers that use suppressors for patrol, but I'm surprised to hear this view coming from the gun community. I usually only hear the uninformed speaking in this manner about a suppressor. Edited April 24, 2015 by EMTRN

[DaveTN]

I certainly don't disagree with that, short barrel shotguns and rifles shouldn't be regulated at all. And cops, aside from SWAT, don't need suppressors or machine guns.

No reason that LE should have what U.S. law abiding citizens cannot.

U.S. law abiding citizens are not being sent into harms way. There are plenty of Police Officers that have been in shootouts that are as violent as most in the military have seen. Why would you want to limit their ability to stay alive when they are being sent into situations as violent as a combat situation?

I’m sure there are cops carrying M16’s instead or AR15’s but I would guess most have AR’s. It really doesn’t matter to me because one is no different than the other in the hands of a trained professional.

I have no idea why they would want a suppressor on a weapon other than the obvious ear protection as they may not have time to put in ear protection. I wouldn’t want a suppressed weapon. I would want the most accurate weapon I could get my hands on; so I wouldn’t be hanging a suppressor on the end of the barrel. You can have a suppressor; why can’t they?

Weapons are irrelevant; tactics and procedures are what are important. I will say this again, when you see cops that dress like combat troops and wear mask, etc. responsibility for the problem is easy to identify because only one person can authorize that. Make them give an answer on why they feel their cops need to be dressed like that. I don’t know how others feel but when I kicked a door as a cop I wanted the people inside to recognize me as a Police Officer on sight. Me wear a subdued uniform and a mask? That would laughable if it wasn’t so deadly.

[E4 No More]

To equip them for an improbable event, sure but for the vast majority of officers, fully automatic or even a 3-rd burst is a huge liability in the civilian setting they are in.

And a shotgun doesn't? Before I left the department there was a study showing that a carbine was a far superior choice because you weren't sending out multiple projectiles with every squeeze of the trigger. There wasn't much of a choice for carbines, so I carried an AR15-A2 instead.

[E4 No More]

I carry a semi-automatic rifle, I have no use for full auto. As others mentioned, the practicality of shorter barrels is obvious when working out of a vehicle. I'm curious about the suppressor comment though. You do know they protect hearing and don't make the rifle any more deadly, right? I don't know of any officers that use suppressors for patrol, but I'm surprised to hear this view coming from the gun community. I usually only hear the uninformed speaking in this manner about a suppressor.

Nothing like the blast of a gun to decrease your chances of hearing another threat!

[Dolomite_supafly]

I carry a semi-automatic rifle, I have no use for full auto. As others mentioned, the practicality of shorter barrels is obvious when working out of a vehicle. I'm curious about the suppressor comment though. You do know they protect hearing and don't make the rifle any more deadly, right? I don't know of any officers that use suppressors for patrol, but I'm surprised to hear this view coming from the gun community. I usually only hear the uninformed speaking in this manner about a suppressor.

He is not against silencers, he is against officers having anything that a regular citizen can't. Silencers should be mandatory for all officer's rifles to protect hearing and prevent disability claims. They even make mini silencers for pistols that do not make them much harder to draw.

 

The officers I have known that were issued full autos said they never received specific training on use of full auto. They said they would qualify in semi auto and that was it. I even knew officers that never fired their full auto weapons. Now imagine what is going to happen the first time they fire in full auto. I say that if an officer is being issued a, or buys his own, full auto he should be required to attend a class on use of full autos before he is allowed to carry it. Way too much liability when you flip that switch over to full auto, especially in an urban setting.

 

Departments are getting all sorts of military equipment to help them and I am all for it except there are certain weapons that should not be in police hands. Departments are getting M2 50 caliber belt fed machine guns from the government. Now what could that possibly be used for by a department? Not like they can use it to clear buildings or to use it at DUI check or anywhere else. I think a lot of departments are getting equipment while the getting is good without understanding what that equipment could be used for. I wonder how many officers know how to actually set the headspace and timing on an M2 or even load it.

 

The biggest problem I have is not the different weapons so much as the different sets of rules for different groups. Our representatives pass laws all the time that do not apply to them. And anyone associated with the government, either federal or local, have a different set of rules than the citizens they are supposed to be a representation of. If an officer is allowed to have a full auto to deal with a threat why can't I have the same full auto to deal with the same threat? A bad guy is a bad guy regardless of who their intended victim is and if an officer needs a full auto to deal with the bad guy I should have access to the same full auto.

[Ugly]

This topic is driven by a small group of society as are most things involving hate. While the militarization certainly seems over the line of protect and serve, it was pushed by those with an agenda. I'm sure most of the law enforcement community is on board because having that stuff is bad ass. Even small town departments are getting a plethora of toys and tools.

 

I believe the negative view is part of the indoctrination process, because it wasn't like that when I went to school. Police and all adults were respected and trusted. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Still Ugly

[EssOne]

I have mixed feelings on the full auto/semiauto issue. I was the weapons training sergeant in four different stations during my career and I know very well that some guys in uniform have natural abilities with firearms and some are totally without that talent, tending to shoot and handle the gun like they got it out of a book. Also, adrenalin is always in abundance during armed confrontations, so in my mind's eye I can see a nightmarish scene where a scared, overexcited cop of the second description above steps out of the car and rips off an ill-considered burst down the sidewalk and into a crowded bus bench.

However, aside from being a cop I was also trained as Light Weapons Infantry in the Army and I want no part of any firefight where the other guy has a machine gun and I only have a semi-auto. That's a suicide mission. So the best I can do here at this time in history is to say that I would be comfortable with selected, carefully trained officers carrying machine guns when and where needed, and not necessarily by every officer on routine patrol as a matter of course. As a friend of mine said about having an AR-15 for home defense: "If we really need an AR to defend our homes with, then we have a much worse problem than the one we're shooting at." The same applies to the issue of cops carrying machine guns. Cops should always be given every weapon they need to defend themselves with in protecting us, but are we to the point where the standard Ameican beat cop needs a machine gun to defend himself with? Man I hope not.

Like I said, I'm really conflicted about this.

I really think the issue here is the broader issue of the militarization of law enforcement. It's very troubling to the public that cops are starting to look like soldiers, and it's even more troubling when you consider that it might just be necessary. I hope it isn't, but.......my friend DID buy an AR to defend his home with, so ????????????????? Edited April 24, 2015 by EssOne

[nightrunner]

The key word regarding officers having full auto is "trained professional " I know I personally do not trust many in LE to handle even a 5.55 on full auto in an urban setting with innocent civilians around. In some instances, it could be beneficial if the area had been cleared but every joe blow in a patrol car with a machine gun, no thanks. Many still believe a shotgun will blow someone backwards.

I also made the comment, "aside from SWAT". I certainly see SWAT having the training and being in the situation to utilize full auto, suppression, short barrels etc.

If LE had to follow the same rules citizens do as far as firearms, laws would be very different

[EssOne]

Why doesn't someone start a separate thread on this subject. We've drifted this one waaaaaaay off topic. Edited April 24, 2015 by EssOne

[mikegideon]

I have mixed feelings on the full auto/semiauto issue. I was the weapons training sergeant in four different stations during my career and I know very well that some guys in uniform have natural abilities with firearms and some are totally without that talent, tending to shoot and handle the gun like they got it out of a book. Also, adrenalin is always in abundance during armed confrontations, so in my mind's eye I can see a nightmarish scene where a scared, overexcited cop of the second description above steps out of the car and rips off an ill-considered burst down the sidewalk and into a crowded bus bench.

However, aside from being a cop I was also trained as Light Weapons Infantry in the Army and I want no part of any firefight where the other guy has a machine gun and I only have a semi-auto. That's a suicide mission. So the best I can do here at this time in history is to say that I would be comfortable with selected, carefully trained officers carrying machine guns when and where needed, and not necessarily by every officer on routine patrol as a matter of course. As a friend of mine said about having an AR-15 for home defense: "If we really need an AR to defend our homes with, then we have a much worse problem than the one we're shooting at." The same applies to the issue of cops carrying machine guns. Cops should always be given every weapon they need to defend themselves with in protecting us, but are we to the point where the standard Ameican beat cop needs a machine gun to defend himself with? Man I hope not.

Like I said, I'm really conflicted about this.

I really think the issue here is the broader issue of the militarization of law enforcement. It's very troubling to the public that cops are starting to look like soldiers, and it's even more troubling when you consider that it might just be necessary. I hope it isn't, but.......my friend DID buy an AR to defend his home with, so ?????????????????

 

Aren't most cops capable of restraining themselves? Can they be restrained by policy? You already issue them powerful weapons. What if they go apeshit and shoot up a bus bench in semi-auto mode? Maybe they shouldn't have guns at all :)

 

I say issue them with fun switches and make them justify every burst. Again, they'll never ask me. 

[EssOne]

Well, matter of fact they tried something like that once upon a time. Our pump shotguns had plastic seals around the barrel/mag tube/action bar area and every time you racked a round into the gun it broke the seal. After that you had to write a lengthly explanation of why you had racked a shell into the shotgun, along with a visit to the Captain's office. So, you guessed it, nobody would rack a live round into the shotgun any more because of this.......And it was instrumental in getting four officers killed in the same fire fight in a place called Newhall. Google "Newhall Massacre" and see what you get. There are NO simple issues or simple solutions when you start talking about cops and guns, especially in a free society. 

[mikegideon]

Well, matter of fact they tried something like that once upon a time. Our pump shotguns had plastic seals around the barrel/mag tube/action bar area and every time you racked a round into the gun it broke the seal. After that you had to write a lengthly explanation of why you had racked a shell into the shotgun, along with a visit to the Captain's office. So, you guessed it, nobody would rack a live round into the shotgun any more because of this.......And it was instrumental in getting four officers killed in the same fire fight in a place called Newhall. Google "Newhall Massacre" and see what you get. There are NO simple issues or simple solutions when you start talking about cops and guns, especially in a free society. 

 

Y'all put a "warranty seal" on a shotgun? :stunned:  I was just talking about accountability, sorta like they already have for any time a cop has to discharge his weapon.