[Harvster]

http://wcbstv.com/local/police.handgun.cameras.2.722036.html


Wow.

N.Y. Senator Pushes For Cameras On Cop Handguns
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) ― In a flash, a police officer draws a handgun from its holster. Less than two seconds later, a red laser and bright light shine at whatever is in the gun barrel's path while a mini-camera records it all.

That's how mini-cams on police handguns would work under a proposal gaining support in New York, which would be the first state in the nation to require the technology. State police were briefed on the technology and are reviewing it for a possible pilot program, said Michael Balboni, the state's deputy secretary for public safety.

The device could create a critical visual and audio record of police shootings for use in court, said state Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former police officer. He is drumming up support for testing the cameras with the state police SWAT squad.

Adams said recordings from the $695 cameras couldn't be altered by a police officer and would quell many questions after controversial police shootings, like the deaths in New York City of Amadou Diallo in 1999 and Sean Bell in 2006.

"That's definitely a new thing," said Meredith Mays of the International Association of Chiefs of Police based in Virginia. She said police have known the technology existed, but no state has required it.

Some police departments have put cameras on Tasers in the last couple years, but there is no major national effort by police to seek or block gun cameras at the federal level, according to the National Association of Police Organizations, a major lobbyist.

"We believe the state of New York can lead the country," said Adams, who retired after 21 years as a New York police officer. "There no longer can be a question mark that lingers after shootings."

Adams, who was never involved in a shooting, said the lights on the 5-ounce camera could be turned off if they would expose the officer to danger in a dark area. But the camera and optional audio recorder would remain operating for up to 60 minutes.

He said the images would also help identify suspects who get away. He wants a pilot program that would allow testing by police at shooting ranges. That could lead to a law mandating the gun cameras, he said.

Adams knows many police won't embrace the idea at first.
There was no immediate comment from the police department and police officers union in New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office said it will review any legislation that comes from Adams' effort.

But in Albany, there is growing support.

Republican Sen. Dale Volker of Erie County, a former police officer who would be critical to passing the Democrat-backed bill, already sought funding for a pilot program. But that $300,000 request to test the technology in state police SWAT squads was cut in the budget this spring as part of efforts to close a deficit of about $5 billion.

"You have to understand, particularly in urban areas today, it is not like the old days when if someone was shot you went before a grand jury," said Volker. Today, he said, an officer would also face intense media and community attention.

"It's a different world," he said. "It's not even a matter of right and wrong a lot of times. It's that people decide very often whatever you did was probably wrong."

In the Democrat-led Assembly, Adams and his colleagues in the influential black, Hispanic and Asian caucus like the idea.
The gun camera is made by Legend Technologies, based in the Adirondack mountains town of Keesville, N.Y.


Can't wait for the case where they slow the frame rate and increase the contrast and show something that the officer clearly should have seen.

[PercyShelley]

Oh this is gonna be a load of monkeys and giggles ain't it?

[Michael in LH]

I hope it works. With all the no-knock raids at the wrong address and the shootings that happen, perhaps this will be a check on abuse. I am not real sure how an honest cop could be against this. If I were in a business that required me to deal out lethal force, I would want all the back-up I could get.

[another okie]

The camera will break and then the officer will be accused of breaking it so he can do what he wants. Is there really a camera that can stand up to the recoil forces of a handgun?

[geekWithA.45]

I'm calling it here first.

I predict this will follow the same pattern as "smart guns" did in NJ.

"Smart guns" started out as a measure for police side arms.

The well organized police unions spent all of about $5 and 5 minutes to get it taken off them, and dumped onto the hapless (and helpless) NJ residents.

[TAB]

If they work, they would be a great tool, 1 lawsuit prevented would be cheaper then out fiting a force with them.

[Car Knocker]

I am not real sure how an honest *gun owner* could be against this.
Fixed it. :D

[Harry Paget Flashman]

If I was forced to add an extra 5 ounces* to my handgun I'd want it to be in ammo capacity, not a camera.

*(The article doesn't clarify if the lights and batteries weigh more.)

[Standing Wolf]

I predict the police are going to yell and scream and hop up and down and snivel and whine about gun cameras. I might be inclined to sympathize with them, but haven't forgotten how many uniformed cops have testified against concealed carry and shall issue laws.

If they'd wanted my support, they'd have earned it.

[jgo296]

should put and end to mexican carry if you know what i mean

[.cheese.]

I think it's a neat idea, but not practical.

Also, I agree on the potential for spillover into the civvy world.

[DontBurnMyFlag]

They have them on some tasers now. I forget the actual statistics but it has led to something like a 96% rate of dismissals in "police brutality" cases. You cant argue the camera.

However, on a handgun it makes sense, but some shots may be taken at a rather far distance. The taser can only be deployed with 21 feet IIRC. Granted most police shootings occur within 10 yards. However, its just a "what if" scenario.

Also, some departments have officers attach laser/flashlight combos to their accessory rails. If you install cameras you will have no room. And Id rather have a laser/light combo to save my ass on the street rather than a camera to save me in court.

my two cents.

[F4GIB]

Great idea, especially in New York.

[The Lone Haranguer]

Why on the gun? How is it going to maintain the image if the gun is fired? :confused:

[Henry Bowman]

Follow the money. I guarantee there is a connection between the manufacturer of the so-called gun cam and the senator.

[41magsnub]

Anybody make a rail system for a 1980's enormous VHS camcorder? That would really help the balance of the gun!

[GunTech]

Putting cameras on police officers' guns makes as much sense as setting up cameras so that police can watch and record innocent civilians without their knowledge or permission.

[larry_minn]

I don't like the idea. Now with modern gear why not mount a camera (like Universal Soldier) and other "futuristic" shows where assult teams have a camera either mounted on shoulder or on hat that transmits back to command post. There they could decide if a situation warrents deadly force. Is so they could send a radio signal to the Officers duty belt to unlock the gun. Then a supervisor would review the info and the superviser would decide if it warrents unlocking the gun so the Officer can fire. (maybe call the legal dept first and have them review it as well)
Pictures don't lie but people interperate what they "think" they see based on their background/what they WANT to see.
You want real fun? Record a short chase scene from a cop show. (Mine was Hill Street Blues We were warned to observe carefully. Afterwards we had a questions on a paper. Most people failed MISSERBALLY.

The questions I recall were "who shot the Officer? " Which Officer got shot and where?" "Did any of the criminals get shot by Police?"
Well I KNEW nobody got shot. The Officers had their guns drawn but a car door slam/something else made a "gunshot" sound. And the lady Officer got CUT in her hand bad and none of bgs got shot either.
I forget numbers but class was at least 70 people. Majority had SOMEONE firing a shot. and Lady Officer hit in hand. (they saw blood) Many had (the guy wore cowboy boots and had a black partner) shoot one of the perps.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'm kinda mixed on this I think putting it on the gun is the wrong place maybe on the officers shoulder would be a better idea, I'd say helmet but they're only really used my SWAT guys for the most part so not really an option. You could still set it up so that the camera comes on when the officer draws his pistol or with a manual switch. The biggest downside I see is some innocent officer or citizen getting railroaded by some video that's been "enhanced" to death to show what the prosecutor wants.

[Igloodude]

Is this any different than dash-cams in police cruisers? My sense has been that the dash-cams tend to exonerate the good cops and give credence to abuse claims against the bad ones.

The crucial difference in my mind between this and "smart guns" is that this doesn't affect the reliability of the gun. It'll still go bang when you pull the trigger, whether the camera fails or not.

[Owlnmole]

Look at how small and cheap video recorders have become, so that they can be thrown in as an extra on a cell phone?

It should certainly be possible to integrate one with tactical light/laser combo, give it a couple of hours of recording time with sound and use a simple switch, magnet, whatever to pause recording when the weapon is holstered.

Like Igoodude said, this would protect the good cops and deter the bad ones. I don't see a down side.

[dhoomonyou]

BETTER YET.

the guns and cameras could be linked to a central computer in Mayor Bloombergs office, this computer would give "authorization" for the officer to shoot or not.

[poker88]

Follow the money. I guarantee there is a connection between the manufacturer of the so-called gun cam and the senator.



Yep. Exactly what I was thinking.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think some sort of wearable camera on cops in a fantastic idea. Not only for accountability reasons, but it also helps with training, as a camera view can show what officers did right or wrong, and things that they might not have noticed in the heat of the moment. A camera has great AAR possibilities. It also would be great evidence, both prosecuting crooked cops, and exonerating accused cops who are innocent. Dash cams have been a great success, and I think wearable cams are the next inevitable step.

[XDKingslayer]

I'm probably the biggest proponent of police accountability, but this is just plain stupid.

[Siderite]

Looking at the photo, it seems huge, and I don't see it being practical to holster.
http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/29/2007/10/30/320x240/thumb_1193784306593_0p006858636800497531.jpg
Also searched and found a better view:
http://www.wrex.com/Images/GUN_CAMERAS.jpg
And a company that makes them:
http://www.pistolcam.com/products.asp
It is telling that the website doesn't have any photos of the actual device, only computer-generated images added to photos.

I'm in favor of police accountability, but I don't think the technology is practical yet. That said, it won't get to a practical level without some field testing and refinement.

[jfh]

The Council will buy you new duty belts--if the tax surcharge is passed.

http://i27.tinypic.com/2j630x1.jpg

(Image courtesy of S&W Performance Center.)

Jim H.

[Pilgrim]

It's just like gun cameras on fighter aircraft. Can't claim a kill unless you have film to prove it.

Pilgrim

[Ken C]

Wouldn't a camera mounted on the cop provide the same information ?

[MechAg94]

I don't like the gun idea, but they already have them on the cars with microphones the officers wear. A small camera the officer can wear would be more practical.

It certainly would help officers defend themselves against brutality accusations.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yes it would. Cameras on guns is a stupid idea, but cameras on the cops themselves is a great idea. What about incidents where the officer doesn't draw, like traffic violations. I think having the camera on all the time would be much better than one that's only on when the weapon is drawn.

[Igloodude]

For traffic violations, the dashboard cam would pretty much seem to take care of it. And I think the difference between the "cop-mounted" and "gun-mounted" cameras are that when the gun is drawn one almost certainly would want a video recorder playing and it's easier for a gun-mounted one to know that the gun is drawn. Otherwise there's the technological issue of needing to record an entire shift and store it in a very physically small/light unit.

I mean, I'm cool either way, but if I was required to pick out less than 10% of an officer's day to video record, times that his weapon was unholstered would be at the top of my list.

[RX-178]

I used to consider that unnecessary. Not anymore.

The truth of the matter is, the anti-gun stance is spilling directly into police training. You've probably heard the phrase, that's currently being drilled into far too many police recruits nationwide: 'The moment you put on this uniform, you're a target.'

It sounds simple, but it's actually quite a profound statement that means nothing less than police officers are being trained to consider American citizens to be their ENEMY. ESPECIALLY any American citizen who owns a firearm. There's even officers out there who are taught that concealed carry holders keep their guns so they can shoot cops at traffic stops.

I know this because I have had a police officer pull his sidearm on me, just for being a concealed carry holder. I was pulled over for a reason that I can't honestly remember, but he was being friendly about it, and there were no problems, until he asked for my license and registration. As I normally do, I handed over both my driver's license, and my concealed carry license (it's not REQUIRED by law, but running the driver's license would have shown I have a concealed carry license anyway, and I figured it'd be better to get it all out in the open at first, rather than have the cop wonder why I was hiding it).


The moment he saw the concealed carry license, he stepped back, drew his firearm and pointed it directly at me, demanding that I get out of the car, and 'kick the gun over to him'. Police officers have the legal power to /temporarily/ disarm citizens, but the fact that this officer decided it was necessary to disarm me AT GUNPOINT is very revealing.

Yes, I fully support cameras being on police firearms, police uniforms, police cars, and even in police stations and police academies, and have all video from those cameras be public record.


(By the way, I was unable to comply with his order, because, as I explained to him, my firearm was in the glove compartment, not on my person! The officer in question is no longer employed with that department.)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Police academies are not public. They are run by colleges and the trainees do no become civil servants until they graduate, are hired, and sworn in.

[RX-178]

I think police academies should be public.

At the very least I want to know who taught that the correct response to a concealed carry holder is to point a gun at them.

That officer may no longer be employed as law enforcement, but the person who taught them that may be teaching the same thing to future police officers still.

[MadBadger]

I think this is a poorly thought-out idea. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a handful of bad/questionable shootings.

The light automatically comes on... so that way when an officer is clearing a dark warehouse at dark thirty, the perp will know EXACTLY where he is.

Most holsters aren't rail-accessory bearing. Sure, the industry will make a few models, but this will severely limit an officer's holster choice (which is already severely limited by the dept., if not "THIS HOLSTER ONLY.")

A few years down the road, these would be required on all civilian CCW guns as well. (Laughable, but you better believe Brady would be screaming for it)

It didn't work in the Bourne Ultimatum, and it won't work in real life.

A camera on the officer's body, however, I think could work. If it was very small, light, unobtrosove, say, a small unit that clipped to the epaulet and ran a wire down to the storage device on the belt. There does not need to be a light on it. If the camera can't see it, the officer can't either, eh? And if you can't see something, civilians or LEOs have no business pulling the trigger.

[Blackbeard]

Wearable cameras might be a good idea. Gun cameras are stupid. What are you going to see? The last half-second of someone's life, that's what. It won't show you the previous five seconds which led to him getting shot. Up until the shot you'll have a great view of the ground, or the inside of the officer's holster.

[F4GIB]

Police academies are not public.

Some are (e.g., Minneapolis), some aren't (suburbs).

[RX-178]

I suppose what I want, more than any method of implementation, is for police officers to know that they are accountable, by the public as a whole, for ANYTHING they do.

Wearable cameras that they are required by law to wear whenever they are on duty would be my first choice for that. But it's pointless if other police officers are the only ones with access to the video. Anything recorded by those cameras must be of public record.

The dashboard camera got rid of one stupid cop, in the instance I mentioned, but I'm sure much more is done outside the view of a police cruiser dash cam.

The open carry incident that's mentioned elsewhere on these boards is a fine example. One cop even threatened to arrest someone for videotaping them in the act! They need these cameras on them so that they know that they're under public scrutiny whenever they put on a badge (in fact, having the camera IN their badge may not be a bad idea), and will be held fully accountable for whatever they do.

Despite my dim view on federal law as a whole, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't support a requirement of worn cameras on any and all law enforcement officers throughout the country. The people should be 'big brother' to the police, not the other way around.

[Powderman]

ARRRRRRRRGH!!!!!


Oh. My. Gosh.

WHAT in the HECK are you folks talking about?!?

Cameras on guns. Yeah, right!!!

This is so far past STUPID it doesn't even deserve comment.

And once again, I am quite amazed by the HATRED displayed by some of the members of this board against law enforcement officers. Wow!

"I believe that the police should be accountable for their actions."

Right. We already ARE--to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than you can dream of.

"Police Academies are run by colleges"

OK. Yeah. Sure. Most are NOT, dear poster. Most are run by the State or local jurisdiction where the commission originates.

Oh, boy. Where do you folks get all these bright ideas?

And wearing a camera on my uniform? Oh, please.

Here's an idea....

Since you don't trust the police at all, I want you to write a letter to your local police department, to the mayor in the city you live in, to your State Patrol and county Sheriff, and to the Governor of your State.

Tell them that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will you accept ANY police response for you or your family, to your home or place of business, for ANY reason.

As a matter of fact, why don't you lobby your local governments to establish a no-response list? Place your name on the list.

This way, you won't get any responses from 911/EMS, your name will be removed from the E911 system, you don't get any fire department support, and you darned won't be bothered by those pesky cops. Hey--we're all idiots, right?

You'll excuse me now--I have a donut to eat.

(Insert sounds and video of a man bashing his head through walls and frothing at the mouth in frustration)

[Deavis]

Is there really a camera that can stand up to the recoil forces of a handgun?

People said the same thing about lasers. The fact is that modern electronics are remarkably resiliant when properly packaged. The recoil of a gun is not really a big deal because the force isn't actually acting on the electronics directly. Besides, even with wire bonded packaging, SMT components, and a pathetic underfill you could slam a properly packaged board against the ground with all your might and not break a component on it. That is the benefit of solid state! Don't mistake common consumer goods for a well-designed system... they are not the same thing.

So, the answer to your question is yes, it is pretty straightforward to construct a camera to standup to recoil physcially. The picture quality is another story completely but, again, can be worked through using standard engineering practices. Testing takes place some amazingly high G forces in the industry but those aren't products you buy at Wal-Mart.

That recorder doesn't seem too much bigger than the original laser sights that came out. I can't find a picture of the LEM, but I think it was about that big, wasn't it? Honestly, who cares? Make the cops use 'em or don't. I would bet 95% of the time the camera would completely exonerate the cop and provide great film for the local news crew to show when Tyrel's or Jimmy Joe's family starts talking about how good a boy they had and how he never did nuthin wrong. Let's see that film of him attacking an officer run at 5PM and then move onto the weather. The other 5% would probably be a wash.

Cameras on guns. Yeah, right!!!

The technology is there and it will only get better with time. It will happen and it will probably be a good thing, just like dash cams are now. Invaluable evidence for good comps and damning evidence for bad cops. Either way, everyone wins. Good cops and citizens, which is what rational people want.

[TAB]

I believe that the police should be accountable for their actions."

Right. We already ARE--to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than you can dream of.


That maybe true some places, but it is not true, for my local LEA.


I also can't see why a LEO would be against something that could save them from false accusations. I remember the same thing when they were putting cameras in the cars... funny how the LEO unions fought those tooth and nail... 10 years later, they are glad that they have them.

[BigO01]

This will end the careers of as many good cops as bad .

Suppose a kid pulls/points a toy gun at a cop and the cops shoots and kills him .

On a tape or whatever it can be watched over and over again by a jury and if there is even a minor tell tale sign that it was a toy gun they will crucify that cop .

They will have hours or days to second guess a decision that needed to be made in a half of a second , Live or Die thats the cops decision perhaps in pain after a physical fight , or in the dark or both all in a split second .

When the first good cop goes to jail for murder due to this idea if it goes through dozens will walk and all we will be left with are the crooked ones who think they can get away with anything due to their connections .

Convictions often hinge on intent and it is impossible to defend ones self when they have a video and a slick talking attorney against nothing but your word .

Too many good police have already been sacraficed on the alter of public opinion when the race card has been tossed around .

[TAB]

Too many good police have already been sacraficed on the alter of public opinion when the race card has been tossed around

Correct me where I am wrong.

LEO are public employees.
the public signs thier checks every time they pay taxs.

If this was a private company doing something you did not like... would you still buy thier product/ service.

Far to many public servents forget tha they are public servents.

[Owlnmole]

I hear you, BigO01, really, but I don't agree. Yes, you will have "armchair quarterbacks" second-guessing the police in some situations, but especially in emotionally charged cases like those with a racial element, the video footage will help to establish the facts. Yes, I am sure there will be exceptions, but since I believe that most cops are decent people, I tend to think that most of the time the video would do more good to the cop's case than harm. When the bad guy's ten buddies all say, "we were just minding our own business" and the video footage shows him coming at the cop with a baseball bat, it won't be a case of one person's word against another.

This doesn't change the issue that a shoulder- or head-mounted camera might be a better solution, however. A lightweight camera and microphone could be integrated into the shoulder-mounted speaker/microphone for the radio, or a very small and light camera and microphone could be mounted on a hat or headset, something like the V.I.O. POV.1 (http://www.vio-pov.com/).

[RX-178]

As a person, I would very much object to having everything I do recorded and observed for later review.

I do not have such wide, and indisputable power over others that the police do.

They may have less power than police in other countries, but that does not mean they do not have a great deal of power over anyone within their jurisdiction.

The argument that police are average Americans doing a job is just outright false. Every single Law Enforcement Officer in this country is granted powers and privileges that no other class of people have.

Because of the amount of power that each individual police officer possesses, they MUST be held accountable for any and all action they take while exercising that power.

Recording those actions is the only way that this will be the case.

[TAB]

RX-178, if you work in a office building, chances are every thing you do at work is recorded and can be observed for later review.

[RX-178]

And I would very much object to that.



But depending on the paycheck, I'd endure it. :D

[Powderman]

Every single Law Enforcement Officer in this country is granted powers and privileges that no other class of people have.

And would someone tell me what powers and privileges those are? I'd really like to know.

I've been wearing a badge now since 1997 and I never knew I was a member of an elite class.

I've always thought--and was TAUGHT, by the way--that I must ensure that the elements of crime--Recklessness, Intent, Criminal Knowledge and Negligence--were present.

I've always been taught that I had to have an articulable "reasonable suspicion" (see Terry v. Ohio, cert. to the Supreme Court, 386 US) to detain a person, and that such detention was effective when a reasonable person no longer felt free to leave.

I've always been taught that I could ONLY effect an arrest when I could articulate probable cause. Probable Cause, as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, has been defined as "that which would lead a reasonable person (a trained, cautious and prudent law enforcement officer) to believe that a crime is being/has been/will be committed. Such standard of proof lies between reasonable suspicion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've always been taught that I am NOT the judge and the jury--it is not up to me to decide punishment or to impose punishment. I am a sworn Officer of the Court, and it is my sworn duty to place those who break the law under arrest, and to bind them over for delivery to the Court, who is the trier of fact.

There is a truth here which MANY of you do not realize.

You have had one or two bad experiences with bad cops--which do exist.

The VAST majority of police officers are NOT crooked, do NOT abuse their authority or commissions, and HATE dirty cops with a passion.

Please try to remember that--and do NOT spout off with how crooked cops are--because most of us AREN'T.

And cameras on guns are VERY stupid. PERIOD.

[TAB]

Powderman, since your a LEO, please explain why you think they are very stupid.

And would someone tell me what powers and privileges those are?
carrying a weapon almost anywhere( which is a privlage) able to buy things the general public can't. Just two things that come to mind off the top of my head and are perfect for use here on THR.


eidt while I'm thinking about it... how do you feel about dash cameras?

[RX-178]

Even the power to arrest someone and be immune from prosecution of unlawful detainment is a power that the rest of the citizenry lack. Even the execution of a warrant is something that police officers can do that the rest of the citizenry cannot (as police officers are the only ones that will be given the authority by a Judge). I understand these are part of the sworn duty of a police officer, and respect that. But it does not diminish the fact that they DO represent the exercise of powers above what ordinary citizens possess.

I do not think that the vast majority of cops are crooked. I do not doubt the sincerity with which Law Enforcement Officers serve the public. BUT THEY DO SERVE THE PUBLIC AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND BY THE PUBLIC.

Uniform cameras also collect /evidence/, that will be helpful in any hearings, trials, or prosecution that result from any incident that an Officer is involved with. Evidence has no loyalty to the officer, or the suspect. It is merely the truth, and can be used in any context.

The cameras will ensure that all LEOs are accountable for their actions, but it does not paint them in an exclusively bad light. The video from a uniform camera can instantly exonerate an officer in a justified shooting that is called into question by witnesses, or attorneys. It also ensures that an officer's testimony cannot be called into question, as the video of the officer's involvement is on record.

If that involvement involves an abuse of power by a bad cop, then it makes it all the easier for that bad apple to be rid of.

[coloradokevin]

I predict the police are going to yell and scream and hop up and down and snivel and whine about gun cameras. I might be inclined to sympathize with them, but haven't forgotten how many uniformed cops have testified against concealed carry and shall issue laws.

If they'd wanted my support, they'd have earned it.

umm... that should probably read "how many department heads have come out against concealed carry". Remember, us street-level guys aren't often allowed to speak publicly on policy opinions.

I already responded to another thread on this subject, but I really don't like the idea. Without repeating the whole spiel, suffice it to say that I don't trust a camera's ability to accurately depict an incident when it is only filming from the time the gun leaves the holster (which may eliminate any opportunity to document most -- if not all -- of the footage explaining why the gun was drawn in the first place)

[RX-178]

And I do agree about the gun camera idea specifically.

Unwieldy, holster-unfriendly, takes up rail space and doesn't record anything useful.




Uniform cameras are the only way to go.

[FTA84]

Wow, how ripe with hypocracy this is.

So there have been a few bad police offers that have abused their power (a very serious offense, no doubt) and so you recommend that every officer, even officers without a single complaint, have a camera attached to them so you can monitor every move.

Funny, there have been many bad people who have abused the RKBA by killing their wives, spouses, strangers, drug dealers, ect. but everyone on this board says, "Don't take away guns preemptively, take them away after they've committed a crime!".

All the arguements for RKBA apply directly to this situation.

You want to know why we have more and more police abuses? Because people who want to be cops to do the right thing increasingly don't want to deal with the crap. The worse one makes this job, the more it will discourage good applicants from beating out the 'power hungry' ones.

I am not a cop and I have never commited a crime. I would be outraged if you asked to put a camera on me as if I were some sort of criminal that needed to be monitored 24/7. Maybe you should tap phones to make sure they aren't conspiring with each other to plant drugs!

What NEEDS to be done is increased penalities for abuses. The fact that officers have authority granted by the public trust, means that if that trust is violated, and in a serious manner, that they should never work again.

It was like that Chicago cop that beat a man in a wheelchair in a hospital while on duty. He got 2 years suspension from his job! That guy should never be allowed to work in law enforcement again. It seems like the only action police departments take against police officers is small financial penalities.

[Powderman]

OK. Where to start?

First,

carrying a weapon almost anywhere( which is a privlage)

Yes...a privilege that carries with it the obligation--both moral AND legal--to be able, willing and ready to use that firearm in service to protect your fellow citizens. The privilege that says that when someone starts shooting and everyone else is running AWAY, I'm running TOWARD the gunfire.

Next,

able to buy things the general public can't.

And pray tell, what might that be? Please don't use the old myth about buying full auto. Law enforcement officers are subject to EXACTLY the same restrictions as other citizens when it comes to Title II/NFA firearms--it has to be on the register, we pay the fee, get the stamp and everything else. Now, here's an eye opener for you...

While it IS true that we CAN buy newly full auto for duty use, here are the restrictions--read this carefully, because the last one is a kicker:

1. Purchased from the manufacturer on Department letterhead, and with approval of the Chief.
2. Paid out of YOUR pocket.
3. Maintained by the Department, and usually kept AT the Department.
4. The firearm is non-tranferable, and...
5. THE WEAPON REMAINS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. IF YOU LEAVE THE DEPARTMENT, THE WEAPON MUST STAY THERE, unless you are going to another Department where it can be transferred to the Department, and then back to you.

Note Well!

IF YOU GET OUT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK, AND DON'T GO TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, YOU LOSE THE FIREARM. PERIOD. WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF REIMBURSEMENT.

Still think we can buy neat things for duty use?

As for this comment....

Even the power to arrest someone and be immune from prosecution of unlawful detainment is a power that the rest of the citizenry lack.



Excuse me?

What do you think happens when a cop detains someone without an articulable reasonable suspicion? It's called unlawful imprisonment, and it ESPECIALLY applies to police officers. So does unlawful search and/or seizure as well as the rest of the laws of the United States and the several jurisdictions. We are even MORE subject to the penalties under law for criminal activity or violations of civil rights. Why? Because we are held to a higher standard of care than non LEO are.

Here's a suggestion:

Find a citizen's academy at a department you are close to. Go through some training, and learn what our job is like. Learn what we actually have to do before you form any opinions.

[TAB]

The privilege that says that when someone starts shooting and everyone else is running AWAY, I'm running TOWARD the gunfire.

Not always, while On duty yes, but off duty is something entirely diffrent.


And pray tell, what might that be? Please don't use the old myth about buying full auto. Law enforcement officers are subject to EXACTLY the same restrictions as other citizens when it comes to Title II/NFA firearms--it has to be on the register, we pay the fee, get the stamp and everything else. Now, here's an eye opener for you...


I was not speaking about full auto... I was speaking more along the lines of other things that are prohibited by state/ local laws and things that companys will only sell to LEO( IE ammo) Just using gun relaited items as this is a forums about fire arms.

[Powderman]

Not always, while On duty yes, but off duty is something entirely diffrent.


TAB, you didn't read my post. Let me explain further.

Look up malfeasance and misfeasance. If I witness something--a criminal act--and fail to act at ANY time, I could be criminally charged. So could any other police officer.

Also,

I was not speaking about full auto... I was speaking more along the lines of other things that are prohibited by state/ local laws and things that companys will only sell to LEO( IE ammo) Just using gun relaited items as this is a forums about fire arms.

And what ammunition is THAT?

You can go online and by either my past duty round (230 grain HydraShok) my current duty round (230 grain, Ranger SXT) or my future duty round that our Department has selected (230 grain Gold Dot) in a matter of minutes. As a matter of fact, you can walk into a gun show and buy it by the case.

The only thing I carry on duty that you can not buy in its exact configuration is the X26 Taser. But you can buy one just as effective from Taser, that is in almost the same configuration.

So, what are these items of which you speak?

[Deavis]

On a tape or whatever it can be watched over and over again by a jury and if there is even a minor tell tale sign that it was a toy gun they will crucify that cop .

They will have hours or days to second guess a decision that needed to be made in a half of a second , Live or Die thats the cops decision perhaps in pain after a physical fight , or in the dark or both all in a split second .

Look, a trial isn't what is is made out to be on TV, everyone here knows that and is mature enough to accept it. The defense will point out the training the officer received, how he is supposed to act, and what the law says. Toy gun, toy knife, it doesn't matter now and it won't matter then if the evidence supports the officer. They have the law on their side, training, expert witnesses, and a system that, while not perfect, doesn't expect you to contemplate a plethora of possibilities when faced with a gun, real or not.

I'd put one on my gun. How sweet would that be to track how you move during training? Analyze where you can save time, what you thought you did transistion wise, what you actually did, etc...

[DMF]

"I believe that the police should be accountable for their actions."

Right. We already ARE--to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than you can dream of.Yes, but so many here refuse to look into the reality of that.

Officers could be subjected to Criminal, Civil, AND/OR Administrative penalties for their actions. If an officer is accused of wrong doing they might be prosecuted. Even if they aren't charged, the charges are dropped, or they are acquitted in court, they can still be sued in civil court. Even if they beat the civil suit they can still be subjected to administrative penalties, up to and including termination of employment. There have been plenty of cops who cleared in both criminal and civil court and still were fired. Add to all that, officers could be charged criminally both in state court and fed court for the same offense. Reference the "Rodney King" incident as one of the most famous examples. While occasionally civilians* can be charged in both state and fed court for the same offense, and while it's rare for both cops and civilians* alike, it's more common for cops to be the exception where both fed and state prosecutions are done for the same crime.



* cop haters don't get your panties in a wad, it's common usage of that term, for ease of distinction.

[DMF]

Even the power to arrest someone and be immune from prosecution of unlawful detainment is a power that the rest of the citizenry lack.That is simply not true. Officers are NOT "immune from prosecution of unlawful detainment," or any other violation of rights. They are only immune from prosecution for lawful acts conducted within the scope of the their employment. If the act was in fact unlawful, they can most certainly be charged with the criminal offense, and may face additional federal charges for a violation of the victim's civil liberties.

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Someone earlier amusingly (or perhaps idiotically) stated that the videos showing the bad guy attacking will be on the local news.

I'll assume you just don't watch TV. What part of the King video did we all see? Just the part with King getting beaten.

And that is ALL you'll EVER see on the news.

There could be 20 minutes of video showing a criminal shooting at a cop. The last five seconds when the cop points his gun and pulls the trigger is all that will make the news.

Anyone who thinks anything good will come of this is fooling himself. What it will do is drive even more people away from a job barely anyone wants to do to begin with and do you want to know what happens when enough cops leave a given area?

For your answer see New Orleans in the first week of September, 2005.

Bad-mouth us all you want, but there are literally millions of psychopaths out there that would turn your sweet little life into Hell if it wasn't for us.

I don't want your pity or your respect or your admiration.

I want you to leave me the hell alone so I can get back to risking my life to save yours.

[Art Eatman]

I don't like the idea if for no other reason than it violates the KISS principle. I just don't like doodads and gewgaws hung on a pistol...

Besides, you'll wind up with something as sporadic as the videos from helmet cams on racecar pitcrews. If you didn't already know what was going on, it wouldn't make sense. In a street fight, they're all different and you can't really know the antecedent conditions.

Art

[S&Wfan]

If ya really want to cut back on abuse and crime committed by our public servants . . .

PUT THE CAMERAS ON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!;)


T.

[RX-178]

MasterofMalice

I would not wish to live in a completely unpoliced society. But there are other instances where police withdrew from an area.

I believe it was Albuquerque, where police went on strike due to pay cuts from lower tax revenues.

Crime DROPPED, as people started purchasing firearms for defense.

The police eventually went back to work, pay cut and all.



If I am to leave you alone as you save my life, then I expect you to leave me alone when I save my own.

But that never happens.

[coloradokevin]

As some of my other fellow officers have stated, we really are held to a higher standard.

It is the one thing that makes these threads so laughable.

Consider:

1) If you go out drinking on a Friday night with your friends, and end up with police contact, can you be fired? I can.

2) If you get a speeding/photo radar/parking ticket, will it go in your permanent record at your job? It will for me.

3) If you have a crazy ex-girlfriend/boyfriend make unfounded accusations about your personal conduct outside of work, does your company start an official investigation against you? Mine will (fortunately not a situation I've ever been in the middle of, but a lot of guys have).

Heck, if I even carry my personal choice of guns off-duty when I am legally concealed carrying as a citizen, I can face suspension at work... My gun of choice (one that I've owned and carried for years) isn't on my department's approved caliber list, and thus if I use it off-duty (on MY time), I can be suspended at work!



Gee, sounds like I am just having the red carpet rolled out for me at work?

So, honestly, there is a LOT of accountability for us. And there is not a lot of "privelage" like some folks have alluded to.

Quite honestly, I agree with one of the above statements:

The more BS that gets added to this job, the less likely it is that your community will be able to get desirable officers. The cameras aren't a great idea, for a number of reasons that have already been stated (by myself, and others).

As is, my department is having a hell of a time recruiting quality applicants. My department even pays fairly well compared to others, but the job just doesn't have much appeal to many college grads these days. Simply put, they don't want to deal with the politics, the hours, the BS, the danger, etc. I love the job myself, but many other qualified applicants are bypassing it for other careers.

Add the more the BS factor goes up, the more you'll good folks for the job! Unless, that is, the taxpayer decides that they'd like to pay a lot more for their officers! I do believe that a substantial increase in pay would convince many qualified folks to pursue the career, even with the bueracracy... But, I don't hear anyone jumping up and down to open their wallets to the idea!

And, TAB, there is nothing that I can buy for work that you (as a law-abiding non-felon over the age of 21) can't go out and buy on your own.

My current duty load is a 200 grain .45GAP Speer Gold Dot HP, and my rifle carries a Federal 55gr HP bullet (it isn't select fire either). Our shotguns are loaded with either reduced recoil 00 buck, or reduced recoil slugs (I'd prefer full power stuff, but I don't get to choose, once again).

[sacp81170a]

Quote:
The privilege that says that when someone starts shooting and everyone else is running AWAY, I'm running TOWARD the gunfire.

Not always, while On duty yes, but off duty is something entirely diffrent.

Uh, incorrect, at least according to my department's SOP. If you have knowledge of a felony in progress, you're required to act, even if off duty. If you see a known fugitive off duty, you're required to act. The actions are left to your discretion, i.e., you don't have to rush in with guns blazing, but neither are you allowed to ignore the situation and go on about your business.

Also add in the "privilege" of coming in on your day off because you were subpoenaed for a case in which you were merely a witness to another agency's arrest and waiting around for half a day, only to find out that the trial has been postponed until next month, at which time you will have to show up in the morning after working a night shift. You will probably not testify then, either, but you have to be there "just in case."

As is, my department is having a hell of a time recruiting quality applicants. My department even pays fairly well compared to others, but the job just doesn't have much appeal to many college grads these days.

The standards are also higher than you'd expect for a "normal" job. You'll have to pass a written and oral exam, a PT test, a psych eval, a background check, a drug screen, and an oral interview before you even know if you have a chance at the job. It's easier to join the military. I know, because I've done both.

[MASTEROFMALICE]

My favorite complaint is the "rude" complaint.

You only get that complaint from people you've arrested or ticketed. Not to insinuate that they're perhaps being vindictive but my IA has a field day with that.

At least with my department a guilty officer is always the assumption.

But I look at it as a fair trade. You made an illegal lane change and almost killed three people in the lane next to you and got a $50 fine, in return you file a BS complaint and attempt to get me fired, put me out of a job, out of my house, standing there having to explain to my wife and two children why we now have to move because daddy got railroaded.

Yeah, I see what privilege you're talking about.

And you don't think cops get fired for idiot complaints? We do, and I know guys it's happened to. It tends to be the best officers, too, which is great because it breeds apathy and laziness.

[divemedic]

1) If you go out drinking on a Friday night with your friends, and end up with police contact, can you be fired? I can.

me, too. So can many other jobs. School teacher, bank workers, professionals, and many others. Part of wearing the big boy pants.

2) If you get a speeding/photo radar/parking ticket, will it go in your permanent record at your job? It will for me.

Again, me too. As it will in any job where you drive an employer's vehicle. But the difference is we don't get professional courtesy and a get out of tickets free badge.

3) If you have a crazy ex-girlfriend/boyfriend make unfounded accusations about your personal conduct outside of work, does your company start an official investigation against you? Mine will (fortunately not a situation I've ever been in the middle of, but a lot of guys have).

This happened to me at my job. Almost got fired. It sucks, but you aren't alone.

You only get that complaint from people you've arrested or ticketed. Not to insinuate that they're perhaps being vindictive but my IA has a field day with that.

Of course that is true. People who don't get tickets or arrested aren't as pissed off. No one will complain if you are handing out free pizza.


Also add in the "privilege" of coming in on your day off because you were subpoenaed for a case in which you were merely a witness to another agency's arrest and waiting around for half a day, only to find out that the trial has been postponed until next month, at which time you will have to show up in the morning after working a night shift. You will probably not testify then, either, but you have to be there "just in case."

Many jobs have on call status. Nurses, plumbers, Doctors, and many others. Be glad you get overtime, and aren't a salary employee.

I want you to leave me the hell alone so I can get back to risking my life to save yours.

I really appreciate what you guys do, but that "risking your life" card is overplayed by cops, fireman, and others. Fact is, out of hundreds of thousands of cops, only a hundred or so a year are killed. One could easily say that crab fisherman and farmers are risking their lives so you can eat, since they die in larger proportion

I think the animosity towards police comes that you see on this board and in the public in general is that they see police demanding privilege (for example, police carry), and then not demanding the same for the public, or when cops bust a person for something that they themselves (speeding, DUI) are doing or have done. As soon as a cop gets caught, the blue wall of silence closes ranks, and the cop walks. If you guys would police yourselves as well as you do the public, people would not be as vindictive towards you.

There was a cop here in Orlando that pushed a woman down the stairs, and then arrested her for PI and battery on a LEO. His partner said nothing. He would have gotten away with it had the video from the club she was in not been made public. Until fellow LEOs can police themselves in these cases, they will face more hostility from an ever increasing segment of the public.

[MASTEROFMALICE]

I really appreciate what you guys do, but that "risking your life" card is overplayed by cops, fireman, and others.

Overplayed. It wouldn't be out of line to say I risk my life four or five times a week.

You're thinking strictly shootings but I'm thinking of everything else.

When your five year old stops breathing there isn't a cop within ten miles who isn't pushing his car past 100 to get there.

When some freak decides he's going to shoot up a mall, it isn't one or two "hero" cops who bust their ass to respond but all of us.

The firefighters put on 80 lbs of gear to go into a burning house. If I beat them there, I've gone in with my uniform as my protection.

I've crawled into wrecked cars, fought crackheads, and chased criminals in vehicle pursuits.

I've been spit on, I've been shot at, and I've been screamed at.

And I do it all for well under $40,000 a year (after five years on the job).

You clearly know absolutely nothing about what we do. Don't compare me to your suburban cops where the town population is 3000.

Fact is, out of hundreds of thousands of cops, only a hundred or so a year are killed.

179 cops killed last year

I'm really, really sorry that more of us don't get killed every year so we can justify our jobs to you, but unlike crab fishermen and farmers cops often get killed by malicious intent.

There is actually someone TRYING to kill us. There is a living, breathing, calculating being who wakes up in the morning and decides he will pit his skill and will against the rest of society.

We're not farmers, we don't slip into a combine, we're not fishermen, we don't get hung up in nets. We're cops, we get murdered by people who want to keep making you a victim.

[ar154life]

This is getting out of hand.........

[RandyC]

Just how bad this gun camera idea really is won't become apparent until a couple are put into service.

It has severe limitations on ever judging whether a shoot was justified or not. And what is the cop supposed to do? -- sweep everyone with the muzzle so the politicians can see what is going on?

At best, I see it a waste of tax dollars. And at worst, it'll make for an unwieldy firearm that could get some officer killed.

[sacp81170a]

Many jobs have on call status. Nurses, plumbers, Doctors, and many others. Be glad you get overtime, and aren't a salary employee.

Uh, no, actually I don't get paid. I've said many times on this board that I volunteer my time. When I have to show up for court during the day, I have to take vacation from my regular job.

[Owlnmole]

Can we please close this thread as it has turned in to discussion of police officers and not a discussion of cameras on guns?

[Pat-inCO]

In reading this thread I see several things, some of which disturb me, some of which are very funny because of the inability of said poster to distinguish between day and night and a few of the posts show a significant lack of understanding. Sorry if this upsets you but if it is a pointed black device made to dig in the dirt and often has a somewhat sharp edge, it COULD be a spade.

First: Are there bad cops out there? A few, but the vast majority are good people that have accepted one of the really lousy jobs in the US.

Second: Are some of these cops short tempered? Once again, some, but most are easy to get along with, IF you treat them as you would like to be treated were the situations reversed. - - On the subject of short tempered; Look in the mirror. Are you p.... (annoyed) because you got stopped? Are you REALLY in a hurry to get to XYZ because YOU screwed up and didn't leave on time? Did you know that "your" officer just completed his third stop, each with a severely retarded punk that managed to - just - stay legal enough that the officer let him go rather than go through the "stuff" at the station for a less than 200% guilty stop?[yes, I said two hundred] - - - Don't forget, these police deserve the "right" to go home safely at the end of shift. Are you doing your part to let them know YOU are not going to attempt to keep them from going home safely?

No-knock raids, bad shoots: What have YOU done lately to keep police informed of problems in your area? Do you have a good working relationship with the beat cop for your area? - - I had a drug dealer on my block for about three weeks. At the end of that time the PD had come around multiple times to "look into" the situation and I had spoken with them all but one time (when I was not home as it happened). Funniest thing, the drug dealer moved before the PD could catch him with his stash. Problem solved simply by COMMUNICATING with the police. GEE WHAT A CONCEPT! - - - - Bad shoots are (about 99%) caused BY THE "OFFENDER" BEING NON-COOPERATIVE! In more simple terms, be polite and TALK with the officer, follow instructions, and there is a minuscule chance of a bad shoot.

Final item: BE SOBER when you deal with the police and your "problems" with the PD/SO/STATE PATROL will be minimized. Even one beer alters your perception of what is happening.

Last item: Gun Camera; STUPID IDEA, follow the money. Which politician is going to benefit financially from doing this? THERE is your problem.

[roo_ster]

I recall a spoof of the Army's Land Warrior system:
"This camera, here, is there so that if I shoot the wrong guy, they can fry my ass..."

================

Dash cameras & cameras on a LEO's person are a good thing and will likely help good cops falsely accused of wrongdoing prove their case.

Cameras mounted on a cop's firearm is a bad idea, due to tech limitations and practical limitations. I, as a citizen, would not want a light to come on every time I draw my weapon. I also don't want to add dead weight to my weapon.

The tech limitations are manifold, but boil down to the fact that any camera that can be mounted on a weapon is likely to have poorer performance than one mounted to the LEO.

===========

I predict the police are going to yell and scream and hop up and down and snivel and whine about gun cameras. I might be inclined to sympathize with them, but haven't forgotten how many uniformed cops have testified against concealed carry and shall issue laws.

If they'd wanted my support, they'd have earned it.

Ouch, that hits close to the mark.

Yes, in many cases it is cop management that is the problem...but not all. As in many things, they will reap what they have sown.

=================

...While occasionally civilians* can be charged in both state and fed court for the same offense, and while it's rare for both cops and civilians* alike, it's more common for cops to be the exception where both fed and state prosecutions are done for the same crime.



* cop haters don't get your panties in a wad, it's common usage of that term, for ease of distinction.

Having been both a civilian and a non-civilian, I think such bad habits ought to be pointed out and expunged.

If you think that folks who are sensitive to such misuse and misunderstanding are cop-haters, you unnecessarily alienate many allies.


===========


1) If you go out drinking on a Friday night with your friends, and end up with police contact, can you be fired? I can.
Yes. Both in my current, civilian occupation and in my former, non-civilian occupation.

2) If you get a speeding/photo radar/parking ticket, will it go in your permanent record at your job? It will for me.
In my former non-civ ob, yes. Currently, it would depend on the entirety of the infraction. If it is just a petty ticket, no big deal.

3) If you have a crazy ex-girlfriend/boyfriend make unfounded accusations about your personal conduct outside of work, does your company start an official investigation against you? Mine will (fortunately not a situation I've ever been in the middle of, but a lot of guys have).
Not just my company, but Uncle Sam may very well jump into the mix. If I can't prove my innocence to their satisfaction, I am out of a job and barred from an industry.

Heck, if I even carry my personal choice of guns off-duty when I am legally concealed carrying as a citizen, I can face suspension at work... My gun of choice (one that I've owned and carried for years) isn't on my department's approved caliber list, and thus if I use it off-duty (on MY time), I can be suspended at work!
When I was a non-civ, off-duty carry / CCW was legal, but barred to me.

[TAB]

And, TAB, there is nothing that I can buy for work that you (as a law-abiding non-felon over the age of 21) can't go out and buy on your own.



You are very much wrong about that. You can buy any hand gun, even those off the approved list, you can buy hicap mags, you can buy an AW, you can buy AP ammo,... do I really need to go on?


cops/ fire men risking thier lives...

OSHA does not even have you guys in the top 10 most dangerous jobs... so please stop playing that card.

[DMF]

believe it was Albuquerque, where police went on strike due to pay cuts from lower tax revenues.

Crime DROPPED, as people started purchasing firearms for defense.Sorry, but I'm going to want some evidence to back up that wild claim.

For the purposes of this issue let's pretend my name is Thomas and that I'm from Missouri.

[John G]

Originally Posted by DMF
...While occasionally civilians* can be charged in both state and fed court for the same offense, and while it's rare for both cops and civilians* alike, it's more common for cops to be the exception where both fed and state prosecutions are done for the same crime.



* cop haters don't get your panties in a wad, it's common usage of that term, for ease of distinction.

I'm not a cop hater, just a former soldier who likes clarity. Common usage can still be incorrect. The word "citizens" applies to non-police civilians.

Civilian police are not military.

[coloradokevin]

You are very much wrong about that. You can buy any hand gun, even those off the approved list, you can buy hicap mags, you can buy an AW, you can buy AP ammo,... do I really need to go on?


cops/ fire men risking thier lives...

OSHA does not even have you guys in the top 10 most dangerous jobs... so please stop playing that card.

Wrong again, TAB. You make wild assumptions based soley on your opinion, then assume that things are the way you think.

Yes, I can buy a handgun off of the approved list (so can you!). But, I still can be suspended from work if I choose to carry it as a CCW weapon (you can't).

You can also buy high capacity magazines, haven't you been following the news? My duty rifle is sold on the shelves in many gun stores, and requires no special departmental authorization to buy (you could buy it).

I can not buy AP ammo. My department does not authorize me to do so, and would not provide letterhead for me to do if if I wanted. As I said, again, my ammo is nothing special. You could buy it at any gun store.

So, yeah, I guess you do need to go on... Because, frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about!



And, where did the ten most dangerous jobs thing come in? It is true that we lose applicants because of the danger... whether or not it is in OSHA's "top ten" list. My department has lost 60 officers in the line of duty, and I know of dozens of guys (personally) who have received SBI (serious bodily injury) in the performance of their duties. We had an officer killed my first week on the job. Do we lose as many guys as crab fishing in AK? Maybe not... But that still doesn't mean that it isn't a factor that sways otherwise qualified applicants from the job. I know the risks (and don't consider them excessive), I accept it as part of my job, but it can still be a major factor when trying recruit people (which is what I was talking about in the previous post). So, don't take what I say, and misrepresent it to mean whatever you would like!

This job does require a certain amount of inherent aggression, and a willingness to walk into situations that most people won't. And the perks you speak of don't exist. We do risky things, whether or not they all involve shootings.

So, what is your point, sir??






Also, for those of you who have responded about also getting in trouble at your jobs, two careers that were mentioned stand out as ones that I have also done:

I managed a car rental company years ago, and drove company vehicles. Never had an issue with getting a ticket (whereas now I do)... And, the alleged "professional courtesy" thing would never even be possible with a photo radar/parking ticket anyway (and I don't drink and drive, and wouldn't expect to get away with it if I did. It is dangerous and stupid, so stop assuming that cops are just out there DUI on their own time).

I also worked for a bank for some time. Police contact would not get you in trouble or fired there... Short of a fraud type of offense, or a felony, you were free and clear as far as work was concerned. That is absolutely not the case in LE, and I could EASILY be fired over a disorderly conduct city ticket or a DUI (the banker will not be).

[DMF]

I really appreciate what you guys do, but that "risking your life" card is overplayed by cops, fireman, and others. Fact is, out of hundreds of thousands of cops, only a hundred or so a year are killed. One could easily say that crab fisherman and farmers are risking their lives so you can eat, since they die in larger proportionWhen was the last time a crab assaulted or murdered a fisherman because he was a fisherman? When was the last time a pig or a corn stalk assaulted or murdered a farmer because he had that job? There is a huge difference between work related accidents vs. being actively targeted for violence because of your job.

Think the risking lives thing is overplayed? How about you do a few traffic stops all by yourself, where you're outnumbered and have no idea what the occupants of the car are involved with? How about you go break up a domestic disturbance where both the crook and victim might both try to assault and kill you? How about you go undercover into a house full of violent gang members all by yourself to get evidence, knowing that if things break bad you will likely be maimed or dead before the cover team can get to you? Tell me the risking lives card is overplayed AFTER you've done a few of those things.

[DMF]

I'm not a cop hater, just a former soldier who likes clarity. Common usage can still be incorrect. The word "citizens" applies to non-police civilians.

Civilian police are not military.I'm a cop and was a soldier, and while I'm a cop I'm still a citizen.

However, the accepted definition of civilian does NOT fit your claim.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

This may help with your problem:
http://www.wedgiefree.com/

[Wheeler44]

This job does require a certain amount of inherent aggression, and a willingness to walk into situations that most people won't. And the perks you speak of don't exist.
Aside from the low pay, lack of respect, constant danger, meddling supervisors and citizen oversight committees, lousy shifts, extra duty, etc. etc.. Why do you do it?
When was the last time a crab assaulted or murdered a fisherman because he was a fisherman? When was the last time a pig or a corn stalk assaulted or murdered a farmer because he had that job?
I'll give you some free advice, don't put your hand in the tank and don't fall into the pen.
Edit to add: Oh, and as a life long roofer...gravity ain't your friend..

[TAB]

Yes, I can buy a handgun off of the approved list (so can you!). But, I still can be suspended from work if I choose to carry it as a CCW weapon (you can't).



No I can not walk down to the local gun store and buy an off list hand gun. I worked for a FFL for years, I can't tell you how many "race guns" were ordered by LEOs, several of those were "sold" privaty party with in a week of being released( I know I both sold and did the PPT) Just becuase your agency does not allow the purchuse of AP ammo, does not mean others don't, you atleat have a chance to legally buy it. a civi in CA does not.


as far as LEO being murdered... most LEO deaths are TRAFFIC related. Being a LEO is still safer then being a tow truck driver...

The loss of a life is a sad thing, but forgive me if I don't see the diffrence between a cop that was killed on duty and a tow truck driver on a grave yard shift trying to feed his family.
You say doing a traffic stop is scary, what about the female RE agent showing houses in the "bad part" of town.( look at the stats for them being attacked) Atleast you have a firearm to defend yourself, most RE agents don't have that luxury

[TAB]

Aside from the low pay,

Not every where... example, from time to time orgs ( both gov and private) release stats on average wages of diffrent groups. Every one I've seen in the last 10 years shows LEO making more, then the average HOUSE HOLD in the US.

[divemedic]

You are also overstating the incidence of death.

For cops, the majority of deaths are due to auto accidents. 58 cops killed last year by assault, out of a total of 850,000 total officers nationwide. That makes your odds of dying by felonious assault on the job at 1 in 14,655.

To put that in perspective: a non-LEO citizen's odds of dying by assault are 1 in 16,919. That means that being a LEO only increases one's chances of death by 14%. More dangerous? Sure. Intensely dangerous? Not really.

ETA source: National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx)

[Wheeler44]

For cops, the majority of deaths are due to auto accidents. 58 cops killed last year by assault, out of a total of 850,000 total officers nationwide. That makes your odds of dying by felonious assault on the job at 1 in 14,655.

To put that in perspective: a non-LEO citizen's odds of dying by assault are 1 in 16,919. That means that being a LEO only increases one's chances of death by 14%. More dangerous? Sure. Intensely dangerous? Not really.

uh, no.....14655 / 16919 =.866 or just under 9%....

[Ash]

DMF, I have been shot at and have had many guns pulled on me. I am but a forester. Oh, and that places me working in the #1 most dangerous location, the logging operation. Guess I better wear that chip on my shoulder. And if you don't think I'm important, you must not wipe your butt real often in the bathroom :evil:

Ash

[pbearperry]

OK I just have to pass on this info to everyone.A few weeks ago I printed out one of the cop bashing threads and shredded it.I then put it in my garden soil.Thanks to the high density of BS in the thread,my flowers are the best in the neighbothood.Thanx guys

[conw]

Personally I think it wouldn't be much good. I realize police often draw their guns preemptively, but it seems that the main elements required for a "good shoot" often happen before the gun is drawn. Why not just put a camera in their badge or something? Seriously...

[John G]

Originally posted by DMF
This may help with your problem:
http://www.wedgiefree.com/

How does this raise the level of discourse, or represent you as honorable?:confused:

[Art Eatman]

Closing comment: :barf: