Why does it seem like LEO's don't know how to use anything but their firearms?

[CathyInBlue]

First, I've been having more vocabulary brain farts than usual of late. That first (italicized and) bolded point has the word "defend" where I meant "apprehend".

Second, it's not really a question of relative proportion now, as the politico-legal situation stands now. That argument is the one the anti-gunners use against the AR-15 platform. Since the founders never had them, they can't be protected by the Second Amendment, which doesn't protect unusual firearms or firearms that are not in common use. This argument says that if the situation is not already common, it can never be allowed to become common. Since non-LEOs using force to stop criminal conduct against them get hauled away on trumped up charges with LEOs should always have a monopoly on force, and because LEOs have a monopoly on force, non-LEOs should never use force to stop criminal conduct against them. It's tautological. Bring down the barriers to people policing themselves and the proportions will change.

 

[VUPDblue]

To the OP: Why does it seem that non-LEO's constantly pretend to know the facets of the job? Is it TV? Movies? News stories full of hyperbole?

all of the above

 

[CathyInBlue]

Here is the part where you tell me how if you were in the same situation you would have done it different. Then I call B.S. because neither you nor I was there and there's no way to know what you would have done...

It's one thing to accuse me of being a Monday morning quarterback, but it is entirely different when you were actually sacked on Sunday evening by people who refuse to abide by the rules of the game.

 

[MPH]

First, I've been having more vocabulary brain farts than usual of late. That first (italicized and) bolded point has the word "defend" where I meant "apprehend".

Second, it's not really a question of relative proportion now, as the politico-legal situation stands now. That argument is the one the anti-gunners use against the AR-15 platform. Since the founders never had them, they can't be protected by the Second Amendment, which doesn't protect unusual firearms or firearms that are not in common use. This argument says that if the situation is not already common, it can never be allowed to become common. Since non-LEOs using force to stop criminal conduct against them get hauled away on trumped up charges with LEOs should always have a monopoly on force, and because LEOs have a monopoly on force, non-LEOs should never use force to stop criminal conduct against them. It's tautological. Bring down the barriers to people policing themselves and the proportions will change.

Beano(tm) helps with that. And it's 0ver the counter

Ok..I understand your point. I won't debate how often its an issue, and obviously it's personal and important to you. But you may want to be careful about what you desire, a bringing down of barriers. I fully expect the defecation to strike the oscillator within the next few years...and when that happens, you'll have all the self-defending you can ask for, without those meddling cops and their dogs.

 

[AJBB87]

It's one thing to accuse me of being a Monday morning quarterback, but it is entirely different when you were actually sacked on Sunday evening by people who refuse to abide by the rules of the game.

I get that, and in no way dispute that "you were actually sacked on Sunday evening by people who refuse to abide by the rules of the game" mainly because I did not witness or experience your situation.

I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but until you've been on both sides of the fence, until you've been the victim AND the LEO, you are only going to have one side of the story. (That statement is not made in regard to [your personal situation], again, because I have no idea what you've been through (and don't need to know).)

Just as one bad LEO should not represent all LEO's, your one situation, although obviously personal, should not be your standard/expectation of how all LEO's act.

 

[AJBB87]

Bring down the barriers to people policing themselves and the proportions will change.

People (INGO refers to them as sheep) do not want to police themselves. People are in denial about the state of their personal safety. They believe that bad things only happen to other people.

Why do you say LEO's have a monopoly on force? Do you not have the means both legally and mechanically to protect you and your property?

 

[UncleMike]

I often wonder why I even read some of the crap some people come up with on here. It is almost like being at work...just when you thought you have seen/heard it all and nothing surprises you, you log on INGO and there it is. The distressing part is some of these people are even serous about what they post. Good grief!

Plus you have the added perk of being able to get your daily dose of abuse and BS here in case you had an easy day at work or had a day off.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Why do you say LEO's have a monopoly on force? Do you not have the means both legally and mechanically to protect you and your property?

I like to think so, but for the next 6 weeks, I've got agents of the state prepared to attempt to prove in a court of law that I have no rights when one of their own is within a certain radius.

 

[92ThoStro]

So no less-lethal weapons for cops.
Cops can only fight with fists.
Cops are held liable for warrants, and can be charged with battery, breaking and entering, criminal trespass, pointing a firearm, criminal confinement, among other things, if the warrant they are serving is defective.

This sounds very familiar....


We are not going to repeal the second amendment, we are just going to make it really hard to get a gun, carry a gun, and restrict what you CAN own.

You are just trying to get rid of cops, or make being a cop extremely difficult and dangerous. But you wont say it outright.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Plus you have the added perk of being able to get your daily dose of abuse and BS here in case you had an easy day at work or had a day off.

Let me know if you ever feel like you are not getting enough BS or abuse and I will work on stepping up my game

 

[UncleMike]

Let me know if you ever feel like you are not getting enough BS or abuse and I will work on stepping up my game

I figured I could count on you to take up the slack if my abuse quota falls below maintenance level.
Although some of the regular Cop haters have been working overtime to see that it doesn't happen, I appreciate your selfless offer.

 

[mainjet]

This looks like a silly thread to post in but I am not going to. I fact, I refuse to lower myself to that level.

 

[hopper68]

I like to think so, but for the next 6 weeks, I've got agents of the state prepared to attempt to prove in a court of law that I have no rights when one of their own is within a certain radius.

I thought that was supposed to be settled back in March.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I often wonder why I even read some of the crap some people come up with on here. It is almost like being at work...just when you thought you have seen/heard it all and nothing surprises you, you log on INGO and there it is. The distressing part is some of these people are even serous about what they post. Good grief!

Ignore list is a magical thing, it makes many forums a much more enjoyable experience. No more than I'd listen to a raving street preacher will I wade through ravings and drivel online.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Police officer shoots partner accidentally while aiming at dog in St. Louis oh, yeah... and he hit his partner....

Since, if you are like the vast majority of people, everything you know about cops comes from Hollywood, the only slightly more informed media, the "reality" shows like COPS, or the occasional interaction on a traffic stop you get the wrong idea. Because when we do everything right it seldom makes the news. Often its not even that interesting for the people involved when things go right. It doesn't make the papers, and its not grist for the entertainment world.

Its why I keep a list of deployments of my patrol rifle and the result (shoot/no shoot/training). So when some jackwagon with the press or an attorney says "you pulled out the rifle with the intent to shoot" I have a log of all the times I pulled it out and didn't shoot.

 

[Denny347]

I was here.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

So you are saying if I fire my gun and it hits a wall first I didn't shoot someone?

Well, what did it hit second?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, what did it hit second?

A person of course. Guess I could have worded that very much better.

Everything I know I learned from the Evansville Police Department, they are setting a rather low standard for the rest of you coppers

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

So you are saying if I fire my gun and it hits a wall first I didn't shoot someone?

A person of course.

I worded my original comment badly. I should have said that the officer in question did not sweep his partner and fire a direct shot that hit him. It was deflected off of the ground and hit his partner. I made <---that comment in response to some dumb comments at the bottom of the article talking about the officer needing better aim.

The person who pulls the trigger is responsible for wherever that bullet ends up.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I thought that was supposed to be settled back in March.

So did I, but I have to take a couple of charges to county court to get a jury trial to finish it up.