Yikes! What? You're a Police Officer? But how? Really? Oh, man...

Status
Not open for further replies.
There certainly ARE folks here who have a strong bias against cops, and I don't think hate is too strong a word for a few folks. And there are a few cops who take ANY negative comment as proof of cop hating. I don't have much use for either extreme.


But in general, I we talk about this issue because of the thing I mentioned, PLUS our understandable amazement that someone could take a job that is inherently risky and yet doesn't take time to be proficient with a basic tool that could save his life.

Kind of like people would talk about a high-rise iron worker who didn't wear safety gear. Every time we noticed it, there'd be a buzz of conversation very similar to our talk about cops shooting poorly. We'd be shaking our heads and saying, "I don't get it. What is WRONG with these people?"

Add to that we're talking about an activity that we LOVE to do, and it's just hard to comprehend someone who has a very good reason to do that activity (practice shooting) and yet doesn't do it. And it's human nature to talk about things we don't understand.

Picture a forum for amatuer competitive swimmers finding out about a Coast Guard rescue crew that doesn't swim well and doesn't care. Yeah, they'd talk about that.

And yes, especially for some of us, if it's a chance to feel superior.


For me, I think it's healthy to understand the reality of the fact that being a LEO doesn't always equate to being a decent shooter, and in fact, across the board most aren't. (As mentioned above, some agencies do better than others.)

I've just got this weird idea that illusions don't help anybody deal with real life.
 
"I don't harbor any hate..."

Actually, given the chance, I wouldn't mind being a COP... My posting was just merely a concern and NOT to bash and/or to point out failures with POs.

Look around us and listen to what is taking place in our world. Every time I turn on the news, there's always someone missing, getting hurt and murdered. I'm not saying that COPs are superheros (always going to be there in split seconds), but its their duty to "PROTECT & SERVE" my community and family.

Its just doesnt give me much comfort knowing that they are not prepared. I'm sure every approach is different, but when the time comes that you have to break-leather, I want to be sure that PO is a GOOD SHOT!

But again, its just a CONCERN.
Peace,
 
but its their duty to "PROTECT & SERVE" my community and family.
Click to expand...


Sadly, that's not legally true. Many court decisions have affirmed that police officers and departments have no legal duty to protect anyone. We hope they do, and I'm very glad for the many officers who take that on as their personal moral code, but they have no legal duty to protect me and mine.
 
LEO's and shooting

I don't think it's hate so much as hearing some police officer/public official/anti-gun type say that only LEO's have the shooting skills to be allowed to carry. There is another thread on THR that was talking about a mountain lion shooting, and how a police captain (maybe retired?) carried a pistol when he went mtn biking but he didn't think anyone else shouldbecause they weren't qualified. That is just bs. Obviously, there needs to be a balance between spending all training time shooting and learning other LEO skills, but at the same time you will always hear about LEO screwups with guns, just like the media makes a big deal about any shooting, especially one involving a child.

-------------------------------


Sadly, that's not legally true. Many court decisions have affirmed that police officers and departments have no legal duty to protect anyone. We hope they do, and I'm very glad for the many officers who take that on as their personal moral code, but they have no legal duty to protect me and mine.
_________________

You're right - I think that police are obligated to protect society but not individuals. Someone out there correct me if that's wrong. But lots of people, including anti-gun types don't realize this.
 
Quartus,

Wow, I was not aware of that... your profound statement makes me wanna buy more guns and ammunitions. I gotta "PROTECT & SERVE" myself and my family.

...although once in a while, I still see some COP cars with that Slogan on the side of their cars.

Peace,
 
I'm a cop. I harbor no illusions that everyone loves us. I also don't believe that everyone hates us. I suppose tht most people see us as necessary. Some might say we're a necessary evil.

In our society there is always a natural friction between law enforcement (or the goverment) and the citizenry. It's part of our history and our culture. THR is part of this long and honorable tradition.

Now I've heard that we in law enforcement are under no loegal obligation to protect people. Please refer to those court cases. Incidentally there have been many police departments which have been sued (and lost) for failing to respond promptly to a call for service, failing to act propmtly when a crime is occurring etc. We are obligated to keep the peace, protect property and basically enforce the law. If someone is being attacked and we are there or we are called we will respond. If your house is being burglarized we will respond and do our best to get in there in time to catch the burglar. If not we will investigate.

If you have been murdered or raped or seriously injured we wil investigate and do our legal best to build a case on the suspect so they can be arressted.

People say that our best isn't good enough or we're reactive reather then proactive. Well sometimes these criticisms are true and sometimes they aren't. But keep this in mind. My city has between 30 - 35,000 residents. My department has 52 officers. On a weekday we probably have twenty officers working. But approximately half of those officers are detectives or schoold resource officers - not out on patrol. The nightshift (all patrol) has five to seven officers working. How can seven officers "protect" everyone? This of course supports RKBA, but please don't use this to say we have no obligation (legal or moral) to protect you. If nothing else the community expects it and we expect it.

It's true many an officer in law enforcement isn't into shooting. But, as I've stated in earlier postings, I spent many years in the Army and saw a similar lack of iterest. Of course I'm not including SF, Delta Force, Airborne, Rangers or the infantry, but the Army is comprised of many many support troops and they rarely go to the range except to qualify. Now maybe it's changed since 9/11, but I doubt it. Now there is so much stuff going on I would imagine that the support units are having a difficult time squeezing in range time plus the combat troops are probably dominating the ranges.

Like it or not most organizations who have and use firearms don't seem to be all that interested. At leat in the United States.
 
Now I've heard that we in law enforcement are under no loegal obligation to protect people. Please refer to those court cases.
Click to expand...

  • Riss v. New York: 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293, N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)

    The government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex- boyfriend had repeatedly threatened, "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was reuiqred to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."
  • Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

    Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told Mrs. Brunell to call back when her husband got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help.

    Other examples:
  • Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
  • Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
  • Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
  • Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
source

Like it or not most organizations who have and use firearms don't seem to be all that interested. At leat in the United States.
Click to expand...
I think this point has been made before but I'll restate it. The problem isn't that cops (and other "armed professionals") aren't well trained, its that the politicians that wish to disarm us hold these "armed professionals" as above us ... saying the only people who should have guns are cops and military when those people are less capable then many of us in this forum.
 
Thanks for the cases. Now I would also argue that in the case of Riss v. New york and Hartzler v. City of San Jose times and attitudes have changed. Here in Idaho we now have I.C. 18-918 Domestic Violence. It falls under both battery and assualt. Due to society's attitudes towards domestic violence officers on the scene will usually arresst the guilty party. Laws change as do attitudes. But if you are arguing that the police should be required to provide 24/7 protection to anybody who believed they might become a victim then please refer to my earlier posting. Exactly how can we do it?

Now does this mean I'm against the right to self-protection? Nope. Does this mean I believe that a potential victim needs to exericse some precautions and common sense? Yep. I guess I misunderstood your posting. I thought you were saying that there was no expectation by society to provide protection and therefore we don't practice it. Here's an example under Idaho Code 18-4011 Justifiaqble Homicide by an Officer.

I.C. 18-4011
Homicide is justifiable when committted by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance either:

1. In obediance to any judgement of a competent court;or

2. When reasonably necessary in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty including suppression of riot or keeping and preserving the peace. Use of deadly force shall not be justified in overcoming actual resistance unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the reistance poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or other persons;

3. When resonably necessary in preventing rescue or escape or in retaking inmates who have been rescued or have escaped from any jail,or when reasonably necessary in order to prevent the escape of any person charged with or suspected of having committed a felony,provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the inmate, or persons assisting his escape,or the person suspected of or charged with commission of a felony poses a threat to the officer or other persons.

I.C. 18-4009 addresses Justifiable homicide by any other person. I'm not going to cover that one here. My point is that I've been directed by law to take another live if necessary to protect not just my life but other persons (i.e. the public). I use this code becasue it's dramatic and to the point. Incidentally I've reviewed the constitution and the courts are right. There's no obligation to protect the citizenry from others. Actually the consitution obliges me to protect their rights (i.e. the 4th amendment) but not their persons. However I would argue that there is many years of cases and just public perception to provide protection. But once again how can seven to ten officers protect everyone in this city?
 
Yes some politicans do place us above private citizens when it comes to firearms, and some citizens also do that. I didn't become a cop because I'm a frustrated stormtrooper. I went into this profession because I believe in it. I'll also argue that most people (whatever their opinion on RKBA) prefer having a police force and a military.

If everyone had to do this work they wouldn't have the time to pursue other interests. At the risk of not providing concrete examples most socities as they become more complex eventually organize regular armies and police forces. It frees them up to do other things such as be professionals (doctors, lawyers, teachers), work the land, engage in recreational pursuits go to schcol etc.

One of the problems that Alfred the Great had in ninth century England was that if he waged war against the Vikings for too long the crops would go unattended and famine would be the result. World War Two took enough men away from their jobs that women stepped in. Please no flames. I'm just using a historical example.

From a purely economical standpoint it makes sense to have a full time body. I suppose it's enevitable that there will always be those who fear or at least don't like an armed citizenry and will attempt to use the military and police against them. At the same time give soem credit to those of us who wear the uniforms and carry the badges.
 
But if you are arguing that the police should be required to provide 24/7 protection to anybody who believed they might become a victim then please refer to my earlier posting. Exactly how can we do it?
Click to expand...


Actually, I think Zundfolge's point is just that - you CAN'T. And courts have typically agreed that you can't and aren't responsible to protect each one of us.

I certainly don't expect you to be everywhere all the time. Actually, I don't WANT you to! Go away until I call you! :D And I'm sure most of us here agree. That's really our point in being gun owners - the cops can't be there all the time and WE are responsible for our own defense. Not because cops FAIL to protect us - it just ain't your job! It's ours. And we like it that way.

You guys have enough to do with investigating and arresting, etc. As for mostly being reactive rather than proactive, that's just the nature of the job, isn't it? I don't see that as a problem, I see it as just the way it has to be. Anything else would be too much like a police state. And I suspect most folks here feel the same.


So when we point these things out, don't assume we're complaining. I think most of us are very greatful for the Thin Blue Line. At the same time, we recognize its limitations. Not because most LEOs don't do their job, but because we as a society have decided (thus far) that we don't WANT a cop on every corner and every doorstep. We like freedom, and most of us are happy to accept that freedom comes with responsibililty.



Oh, and in case it didn't come through clearly, I am VERY grateful to those of you who wear a badge with honor, upholding the principles and traditions of freedom on which this country was founded. Thank you. I appreciate what you do, the sacrifices you make every day, and the risks you take on our behalf.

Thank you. Salud.
 
I understand Quartus. I wasn't attacking you though I know that it seems like it. I suppose that I've seen several cop bashing threads over the past few months, choose not to say anything, and I was set off by this one - which isn't fair to you.

Ironically I picked a fight with somebody who I agree with. If it's any excuse this has been a lousy day to be a cop and my mood has been prickly. The really stupid thing is I'm in a bad mood because of something that other officers have or haven't done. Oh well. THR is never boring.

Take care.
 
I didn't think you were attacking me, sir. I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from.
 
Police work is not "about" guns...

Howdy,

I think that what a lot of us gun nuts (yes, I include myself as a gun nut) fail to see is that police work is not about guns. I know plenty of officers who are great shots but crappy cops. I know plenty of officers who are crappy shots but great cops. Being able to shoot has little to do with one's ability to apply the law and do the job of a law enforcement officer. Once in a while, one of us has to use deadly force. Obviously we need additional training in the use of firearms for most officers. We also need a lot of training in driving, defensive tactics, legal updates. The simple fact is that we could spend every day in training and still not be perfect at everything. Training tends to be the first thing to get cut when the budget crunches. The cops who can shoot tend to be those that do it on their own time and own dime.
 
I think most of us realize all of that, but the gun is in a different category from most of a cops other tools. In some ways, it's THE symbol of his job, and it's functionally different from many of the other things that take up an officer's time.


Not being up to date on the latest laws may get a cop sued for false arrest.

Being a lousy shot may get you killed.


Worse, it may get your partner or a bystander killed.


WHY so many cops are lousy shots is not hard to explain in terms of allocation of resources (both the department's and the individual officer's), but that doesn't mean it's an acceptable situation.


And yes, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes to provide better training (AND better pay!) on one condition;


If I could be absolutely sure that the money would actually go for that purpose.


Now, THERE'S a tough proposition!
 
A couple other things to consider from my uninformed point of view.
What is a good shot ? Remember, we are talking about gunfighting and not bullseye target shooting. If you can hit an 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper at 25 yards, that is plenty good enough accuracy for your average gunfight.
Secondly, we are comparing accuracy on a square range to accuracy in a gunfight. The best target shooter or the best IPSC shooter in the world might fall down in a fetal position when the first shot is fired. I would much rather count on someone who will stand there and engage the enemy with mediocre accuracy than someone who turns and runs. That isn't to say that police officers are fearless: it is saying that there is far more to gunfighting than accuracy.
 
There is another thread on THR that was talking about a mountain lion shooting, and how a police captain (maybe retired?) carried a pistol when he went mtn biking but he didn't think anyone else shouldbecause they weren't qualified.
Click to expand...
It was NOT a cop in that story it was a US Air Force Reserve officer, and pilot. Anyone who has spent some time in the USAF would be embarrassed to be associated with that knucklehead and his lame rationalizations.
 
In some ways, it's THE symbol of his job . . .
Click to expand...
No it most definitely is not a symbol of my job. The symbol of my job is a set of credentials that defines the extent of my legal authority. It has my picture, my name, and states the references in the US Code that limit my authority to enforce federal law. It is shown to anyone that requires identification, and functions as a symbol of my job. My gun, like my cuffs, OC spray, cuff key, vest, etc, are just tools of the trade, and I keep them concealed unless needed, so they don't symbolize anything.
 
There have been many of men who though Texas Rangers could not shoot and died of lead poisoning. If an LEO is carrying a cocked and locked 45acp it would be a safe bet he know how to use it. around these parts we call them gunfighters.
ps lay of the LEO's they have a hard enough job as it is to be defending themself on this forum, which most people never see that stress everyday.:)
 
I started out my career in law enforcement with a large city PD. Firearms training consisted of 80 hours of range time. A full week and another week broken up into one day classes. The training we received was excellent. However, after the academy the majority of my classmates has never been to a range on their own time. Most of them had to be dragged to the range kicking and screaming twice a year. One of academy friends just barely passed the final quals and continued to just pass but every time I offered to go to the range with her she had more important things to do. On the other hand, I never had any problems finding officers and/or friends to go to the range with.

DMF,
I have to agree with you that at FLETC we also fired thousands of rounds on the range, and the scenario based training that involved shooting with Simunitions were a lot of fun.
 
I just love these threads!

Having worked in security for the last five years, I can honestly say that I've seen it all. I've seen armed "professionals" that couldn't shoot to save their lives, let alone mine, and I've seen guys that would wipe the floor with anyone here. I've seen new-hires that were downright terrified of their pistols and just barely passed (or were passed) the qual course....they like the paycheck and pray they don't need the pistol!

Why are cops the target of attacks/observations like this? I think a lot of it has to do with the negative attitude a lot of LEOs show to us "civilians". Nobody likes to be talked down to and I see that a lot around here. Maybe there is an expectation of a certain level of professionalism and the display of ignorance that poor shooting is isn't appreciated.

Personally, I believe that you should be proficient with your sidearm. If you are so ignorant that you can't see how much it would cost for the company/dept to train all of their employees and do some of it on your own, you really don't need to be toting a pistol. What defines proficient? I don't know if it can really be defined.

What keeps me practicing (and that includes a lot of reading on the subject, not just shooting and competing)? I just don't like the idea that someone else might die because of my incompetence. I have a lot of customers that are honestly hoping that I can protect them if I'm around when the badguys try something.

And remember, being prepared doesn't mean being a grandmaster pistol shot. As it's true that there is more to being a cop than shooting, it is also true that there is more to fighting than handling a gun. That's were all the reading and classwork comes in to play.

Does the average cop know how to drive his cruiser? I've never seen one skidded into a ditch! Is it too much to ask that they also have a higher level of weaponskill? Is the lack of weaponskill an indicator of a lack of prioritization? Is it a sign that they aren't really interested in helping others as much as they are about getting that cushy retirement or political promotion?

I don't know the answer to all of my own questions. I do know that I don't want any armed professional, including my own coworkers, to ever draw a sidearm when I'm around.

And I shouldn't have to say that.
 
It has occurred to me that instead of complaining and just talking about what we believe is a problem, that maybe we should do something about it. Perhaps we could go to our local POs and invite them to our ranges. Buy them a couple boxes of ammo and not only will they get some additional range time but in a small way we can combat the "us vs. them" mentality that seems so prevelent today. Ask your range to host a "Bring a cop to the range day" (ala Bring your daughter to work day).

Just a thought.
 
It has occurred to me that instead of complaining and just talking about what we believe is a problem, that maybe we should do something about it. Perhaps we could go to our local POs and invite them to our ranges.
Click to expand...

I'm still very much a beginner at shooting myself, and don't think I'd have anything useful to offer my local LEOs. But if I honestly felt I was a better shot, or had better handling techniques, or generally was just more of a "gun nut" than the local PD guys, I don't know how in the world I could approach them without it seeming quite condescending. I mean really, how's your local LEO going to take it if you (even subtly) imply he doesn't do his job as well as he should, and you've got something to teach him?

I think the idea is cool, but you'd have to be very careful to not come off as very arrogant.

-twency

__________________
" The parent who complained, Karen Young, doesn't want fish-shaped toy guns in her house because she accidentally shot an ex-boyfriend one time when the gun she was beating him with went off."
 
My wife works at a NH PD where Captain Ayoob hangs his hat. I can tell you that there is more knowledge in that department about weapons than most. I can say that not including Mas in this conversation. Fairly astute bunch there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top