Should the Cops Take Risks?
 

Do you feel like part of a cops job is to take some risks to protect the citizens ?
That they should take a second longer to pull the trigger so they are sure the citizen has a real gun?
That they take the chance of getting a stray punch so that even a street urchin doesn't die or even get a broken arm?
In other words they work for us and we come first even at risk of their life?

They should take all kinds of chances. If a persion has a gun he needs to inspect it to see if it is loaded. If a persion has a gun he should be able to identify it as to brand name. :umno:

As a firefighter I took grave risks. I'm not a bit uncomfortable asking cops to do the same.

I think if you are holding a gun in your hand you can’t expect a cop to make sure it is a real one. A little common sense.

Common sense is lacking these days.
You point a gun at a cop, you will most likely be shot.
Doesn't take a lot of intelligence to figure that out.
What do they expect the cop to do, wait until the suspect pulls the trigger, duck and then shoot?

You probably didn't have a lot of people shooting at you with a "president" and his cronies egging them on

..............Taking 'Risks' are a normal part of their job ! The number of murdered citizens who were basically innocent OR received the Bonnie and Clyde treatment due to the excessive use of force says the cops aren't too worried about being either investigated and\or prosecuted for killing citizens .
...............And , they always shoot to kill , they never wound anyone cause they don't want them testifying in court . Cops like the 'Group Shoot' method of execution where the innocent until proven guilty person receives 30 to 40 hits . These folks can't be organ donors for sure ! , fordy:coffee:

Society is deteriorating. The public cops dealt with 40 years is gone in many places. Too many today have zero respect for any symbol of law and order and often downright hate it. OTOH, cops no longer serve and protect. Get stopped for a traffic violation in many places and the cops assume you have committed other crimes as well. They ask where you've been, where you're going, if you have drugs or weapons in the car, etc. Act a bit nervous and they want to search your car or call in the drug dog. None of that should be allowed unless they have reason to suspect you of a crime but it is commonplace today. That is not protecting and serving. That is hassling.

Are you suggesting cops do not take risks?

No. I'm just responding the the question. The original poster asked the question, didn't he? Maybe you should ask him if he was suggesting that cops don't take risks.

If you take a job as a cop, you take a certain amount of risk. That does not mean you try to get yourself shot, but also that you use what used to be called "common sense"

Cops already take risk simply by taking the job. Many metro areas have a shorter in field life expectancy factor for a LEO than the in field life expectancy factor given to a combat zone forward observer whose assigned duty is to draw friendly fire aim close to their location.

A few years back the estimate of a LEO of a patrol shift sustaining critical or fatal wounding during normal patrol in some zones of Montgomery Al, Houston TX, NYC and Los Angeles was estimated at less than half a minute after entry into the hot zone areas.

At the same time the risk factors were so high in those metro areas, those LEAs advertised job openings at what first appeared to be good salaries in other parts of the country for applicants willing to relocate.

Common Sense on the part of a suspect includes that when told to lay down and not resist when surrounded by armed LEOs, they lay down with arms spread and hands in plain view without resistance because at that point as the song goes "the law won".

Why not?
And what if I have a gun in my hand that IS real? Should I die for either of those reasons?

How about a little common sense?

So sad but very true.

Again sad but true.



Well Yes, since that's their job. Im not sure if the duck will help though.

:umno:No one is trained to shoot to wound. You shoot until the threat is ended, period. You can end up very dead trying to "wound" someone with a gun.

But wouldn't "common sense" dictate that you didn't put yourself into those risky situations in the first place?
I think we ask more of our police than common sense , we ask them to be trained well and to protect the citizens at some risk to themselves.

Life in society has consequences. Break it. Stupid can get you killed. Cop or law abiding citizen....James

When I was range trained in a self defense shooting class by the same instructor who trains area LEOs, he taught us to shoot center mass .

When a woman asked where to aim if she only wanted to wound somebody he reminded her that a firearm was lethal force not wounding force and in a self defense shooting situation a wounded man could be a greater threat than he was before being wounded if he was still armed.

True. To the same level as a well trained law abiding citizen. Break the law or put "yourself" at risk, you may die. "You" then take the risk on your self. Break the law, I want police to protect me, the law abiding citizen, as it should be....James

Do police go to far, yes, a lot. Police should be held to the same letter of the law as any other law abiding citizen. Murder is murder. Every gun death, that the dead suspect had a gun, even if not fired, should go to a court with a jury of 12 people....James

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornhusker http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ima...s/viewpost.gif
What do they expect the cop to do, wait until the suspect pulls the trigger, duck and then shoot?



How many times have you been shot at and missed? 10? 15? Their job is NOT to get shot at, but to keep people from shooting them or others.

As to the risks cops should take to save me, I don't expect them to take any risks I wouldn't take to save them.

I don't think getting shot is a job requirement, but it happens.
I know quite a few LEOs, and most are decent people trying to do a job, make a difference and go home alive.

That's why it's important for honest men and women to arm themselves.
Cops can't be everywhere, and politicians just seem to make the country more dangerous every day.

I think most people to expect people paid to be cops to take certain risks they dont want to, that's the reason they hire them.
As for how many times Ive been shot at and missed while thats too many wouldn't the times Ive been shot at and hit more relevant?

A couple of points:
A garbage man is 3 times more likely to die on the job than a cop is.
The courts ruled it is not the job of the police to protect us.

You pull a gun at a officer how is he tho know it is not real or what if going through that person head at the time. He is trained to point and shoot. And shoot to kill.
Want to live OBEY his commands and for goodness sakes to pull a weapon on him unless you have a death wish.

I'm still waiting for you to ask the original poster that question.

My question was to you.

By why were you asking me? Did I suggest that cops don't take risks? The OP might have, but I certainly didn't.

What happened to Serve and protect. Other wise....You come to my place waving a gun at me or mine....You ARE dead....James

Why didn't you just say that the first time....James

Wow. Has it REALLY come to this - that people ask if it's a cop's job to take risks? That they should wait longer to make sure a gun is a gun? That they should take a punch rather than harming a criminal?

My point of view is that cops take risks EVERY single day they are on the job. Just pulling somebody over for a traffic violation can result in their death - the person they pulled over might have all kinds of drugs in their car and have already been in prison and don't want to go back. Easy enough for them to pull a gun and shoot the cop as he is coming up to the car.

I guess this attitude shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, the criminal has always had way more rights than the victim. I guess we are at the point now of protecting the criminal before they come under arrest.

I guess it was wrong for the people of Flight 93 to try to take back the plane? After all, they didn't have proof that terrorists were planning on flying the plane into some building. They might have just been out for a joy ride.

:hair

Define risk?

Jump into a frigid pond to save a child, or second guess a suspect, who won't take his hand out of the front of his pants?

The NYC Cops minimized their own risk by putting a "choke hold", to subdue a 300lb suspect, who was clearly agitated and clearly resisting arrest. they received their own beat down from all sides, for their effort to maintain law, while protecting themselves. The criminal was the victim.

Not sure how much risk, they will want to take, when the public all to happy to throw them under a bus. Second guess a suspect too long and they might be the one in the body bag.

They used to set in a donut shop all night, because there was no crime. In the future, they will set in a donut shop all night, because although there will be plenty of crime, they will not be willing to arrest anyone.

Risk? Every cop is at risk the minute he goes on duty. Risk? Walk up to a car you just stopped for speeding and reckless driving. Young county deputy here did just that, man jumped out shooting. Turns out he had killed a man about an hour before in a nearby city. Luckily the deputy survived his wounds and the speeding-reckless driver was apprended after taking a 80 yr old lady hostage for 5 hrs. I once watched a young officer stop a car, as he walked up he laid his hand on the car near the tail-light. I asked him about that, part of his training to put his hand print there in case something happened, would help id that car as being involved. Risk? I know I wouldn't want that job.

When we trained, a common approach was "I will go home to my family at the end of shift". The cost could be a death on the other side, oh well.

That would be my motto too, If was a Cop.

I believe there is an implied risk with emergency service jobs but the original question is a bit ambiguous.

Most police can work their entire career and never discharge their sidearm but I can think of examples to defend both sides of the debate.

Four young RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe were killed while guarding a grow op while awaiting a legal search warrant. They shouldn't have been in the position they were and they should have fired immediately.

A mentally ill man was very distraught and neighbours called police and upon arrival, family members offered to calm him down. He was shot leaving his home with an umbrella. Maybe letting family talk him down was a better idea.

Vancouver RCMP will forever be known for detaining a Polish man at customs for several hours and tasering him to death for 'a menacing gesture with a stapler.'

Statistically speaking if an officer has to draw a weapon, they are trained to use it, the end result will be fatal and they are likely fearful and fuelled by adrenalin.

I'm less offended by police making a split second decision than I am the fact that our police investigate police. Perhaps civilians would feel a bit better if investigations were a bit more transparent or investigated in another way.

My husband is as cop. Several of my uncles are cops, or have retired from the force after years of service. One of my uncles was medically retired after an unarmed suspect wrestled his service weapon away from him and shot him in the leg.

Cops can and do take risks every single day that the average citizen would not be willing to take. They bust down doors not knowing what they're going to find on the other side, pull over cars that may be driven by people who have committed crimes more serious than speeding, and get called into situations where every single move they make can and will be reviewed at length by Monday morning quarterbacks.

If a cop hesitates to shoot someone because he's not sure the gun being pointed at him is real, is subsequently killed by that gun due to his hesitation, and the person with that gun then goes on to kill a whole schoolyard full of children, the general public will riot and loudly declare that the cop was a moron who was too chicken to shoot someone who clearly had a weapon.

If a cop shoots someone because he pointed something that appeared to be a weapon at him, and it turns out the gun was a fake, the general public will riot and loudly declare that the cop was a moron who was too chicken to risk getting killed and he should have instead waited to ensure the weapon was real before he fired.

It's pretty simple: if you don't want the cops to shoot you, don't point anything that resembles a weapon at them :shrug:. Thugs are painting their guns to look like toys, they've been doing it for years. Cops do not have bionic eyesight :rolleyes:

My husband takes risks on the job every day he's on duty. I've shared this before, but when he took his oath to serve and protect he was also putting my life, and the lives of our children, on the line. If he's in the state of Virginia, even if he's off duty, and he sees a felony in progress, he is REQUIRED to try to stop it. In plain clothes, no uniform, no kevlar, no backup, no way to call for backup..... even if I'm in the car next to him and our toddlers and teenagers are buckled up in the back seat.

My husband would jump out of his car in a heartbeat to protect your family against an armed mugger or carjacker whether he's "on duty" or not. If he dies doing it, and the armed attacker then comes over and executes me and our kids, we would have died because of his oath to serve and protect.

So do I think my husband should shoot someone who points a gun at him? Yes, yes I do. Should he be required to ask to inspect the weapon first to make sure it's real? No, he should not, and honestly that's a ridiculous question.

My husband has been in a few situations in his 17+ years on the force where he was within his legal rights to shoot someone, and he made a split second judgement call not to. Fortunately they all ended well (so far), but in every one of those cases he could have shot and killed someone and had it deemed a clean shoot. Pretty much every officer who's on duty for very long can say the same thing. You don't hear about THAT on the news, but I assure you that it happens every day.

My husband is retired cop, served for 25 years. I assure you that every day a LEO goes to work, they take risks. The last year of his career, DH was transferred to a "safer" position serving civil warrants (knowing he was planning to retire soon). His first week in the "safe" position he came closest to being in a shoot out than he has been in a long time. He was serving an eviction notice. The man was desperate and was planning for "suicide by cop". He had loaded guns ready by every window. He was not a criminal, he was a good guy, a veteran, just really really desperate about his situation. He planned to have a shoot out with the cops and die in the process. He broke down and when the knock on the door came, he did not have the guts to do it. He had nowhere to go and the cops helped to get him to a temporary shelter ... Everyone walked away alive from this, but the point is ... cops take risks every day - even doing something perceived as safe. My children need their father to come home at the end of the shift.

The average number of cops feloniously killed per year over the past decade: 51.1.
(FBI statistics)

In 2014, 126 total died in line of duty. 50 died by gunshot wounds. 49 died in traffic accidents.

In 2013, traffic crashes were the #1 cause of death.

By comparison, the 60's and 70's had about 3 times the average for the last 10 years. Their job has gotten far more safe.

In contrast, the police killed 593 citizens in 2014.

I think they are winning.