First of all my position on the gun-cam, I could situations where it would be valuable. However, those would likely be few and far between. It seems a little bulky yet and will probably be refined further.
I agree. There are limited situations where it would be valuable and would be a great tool to deploy for the purpose that it was designed for. But for general, every day use, it becomes a liability and a hazard where it would generally serve no purpose.
Is it a valid tool in the right circumstance? Absolutely. If you are unfortunate enough to be caught up in one of those situations the danger of being momentarily covered by a trained professional using it pales in comparison to the danger you are already in. You would either be a hostage, a barricaded suspect, a terrorist, a dangerous fugitive, etc. All of those are high risk professions. Face it, life stinks sometimes, and it isn't fair. Deal with it.
Agreed for the most part. Of course this does not address being an unrelated third party being covered (let's not go into the whole "trained professional bit"), during a situation other than the rare extreme that is described above, which is a major aspect of the point.
As for protect and serve. I couldn't agree more. That is our job. But the word serve has been taken out of context. Serve doesn't mean we come over and paint the garage when it needs it.
I didn't see anyone ask that or refer to anything like it.
Nor does it mean we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of some derelict who put himself in a very dangerous situation. I'm not out here to protect nor serve those that molest kids, beat wives, robs convenience stores, rip off old people, and the list goes on. They are the enemy of the common good. We are here to deal with them within the limits of the law. That's how we serve.
Except, you don't get to make a determination of guilt or innocence. So unless you see the crime happen in its entirety, treating someone as a violent felon without more than someone else's word can go too far. Your job in this aspect is to collect evidence and determine if it grants enough suspicion to warrant an arrest for the DA to bring to court with charges if they in turn can build a case from that evidence in addition to any that they may be able to obtain on their own or with further investigation. Someone calling the cops and saying "Joebob molested my kid" does not Joebob a felon make, nor does it make him violent. This is a largely individual issue on a case per case basis with perhaps a slight lack of proper oversight and means of vindication or penalty in some situations. Of course, another discussion for another thread.
Some things we do are very risky, but we don't use all the tactics that would give us the biggest advantage because the citizen has done nothing to warrant being treated that way. An example would be most traffic stops. On the other hand we do some things that are very risky, and we do take every advantage, because the suspect created for himself a situation where it is warranted.
This is purely situational, and I would concede on most of the black and white stuff (traffic stops, some nut job shooting up a schoolyard in front of you) but the problem lies in the gray areas which the you really don't want to discuss because it discounts your argument or makes you look bad when you take the position that endangering innocent people to save your own tail is acceptable.
Now I know where this is coming from and I've been through this with nineseven before. He argument is purely academic with no basis in experience. He uses the same tactics to attack the actions of police as the antigunners use to attack gun owners. Link to a poll, bring up some bad, albeit isolated, incident that is an example of your stereotype and there you go. As was stated here earlier there's really no point in arguing with him, and I have no intention of doing so.
Funny, because we both agree on some major points, so am I just lucky this time? I brought up not one incident. I brought up real numbers from Federal Law enforcement agencies, I brought up quotes from LE trainers and those with such physical experience, and I only linked one article. You would prefer that I just say cops are bad and have no evidence because at least you can counter that by saying, "no they're not". You can't use the "no they're/it's not that way" response when someone actually analyzes the data, tactics and policies, so you fall back on the only thing left after the "cop basher" card...the whole "experience" bit (meaning, if you're not a cop, your opinion doesn't count -which is fallible on many, many levels).
Yes we've been through this before, and when you, like others like you, cannot dispute the facts or blindly label me a "cop basher" (do a search on my threads here, I support the police easily 60-70% of the time) you kindly pull the whole "academic" thing as if the only people that can adequately assess the actions or polices and tactics of cops are other cops. You have your own little vindication group built right into your fraternal membership. If you can discount my arguments simply by saying my experience is "purely academic with no basis in experience" then it is equally logical that I could argue that your point is not relevant because of the inherent bias in your opinion because it comes from a "purely experiential standpoint with no basis in intellectual, unbiased outside observation".
I am a professional analyst by trade at this point, you are a professional police officer. Who's more qualified to objectively analyze relative data and form unbiased conclusions or make prudent recommendations? Who's more qualified to make an arrest? Who's more biased here? I have a history of supporting the police on this site and others on nearly every single issue save this one (covering non violent suspects with loaded firearms for any reason) and no-knock warrants/unreasonable searches and seizures. You can't honestly brush me aside with cop basher, so you default to "you're not a cop, how dare you have an intelligent opinion on what we do". Sorry, but that does not work either. You can play the "I'm not arguing with NineseveN" game, I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm displaying the evidence I have used to form my conclusions for others to see. Judging from the PM's I've been getting, I'm winning, if you really want to keep score. Personally, I think it's silly and juvenile, but it does bring a small hint of satisfaction to know that I don't have to resort to name calling or baseless accusations even in the face of obviously biased arguments that bring forth no evidence or facts to verify or dispute.
P.S. Nice effort on attempting to group me with anti-gunners through some baseless claim of similar methodology. If anyone is resorting to the same tactics, it’s your crowd. I give you evidence and facts, you just say “yeah, but you’re wrong” and bring up vague generalizations and resort to juvenile name-calling.
Example:
NoGuns: Guns are evil.
Gunny: Well, they’re inanimate objects, tools used for purposes lawful and unlawful. It is people that misuse them for unlawful purposes that are the problem, not the objects themselves.
NoGuns: All kinds of people kill each other with guns every year, we need to outlaw them!
Gunny: crimes involving guns are rarely committed by law-abiding citizens, nor do they usually employ legal firearms. Since criminals are already intent on breaking the law (which is what makes them criminals), outlawing guns only punishes the law-abiding, not the criminals because they’ll just break the law and get firearms anyway.
NoGuns: But they’re scary!
Gunny: Fears of inanimate objects are irrational and stem from other deeper psychological issues. I can show you some evidence from qualified mental health professionals that backs this up. I can also show you statistics from law enforcement agencies on the actual use of guns in crime to validate what I have stated.
NoGuns: You’re a radical gun loving militia member! You’re biased, I hate guns!
Gunny: Well, I have based my statements off of facts, not just my emotional attachment to the issue. It is true that I like guns, but what you are saying is not corroborated by any known data.
NoGuns: People can buy machine guns at gun shows and then they kill babies! Baby killer! It’s useless arguing with you, you won’t listen!
Heh, I’ll let you figure out which side you guys sound like to outside observers in this debate.
