“Tammy Robinette made several huge errors in judgment while driving in Greene County on the night of October 4,” riverfronttimes.com reports. “Drinking and driving was a big one. That caused a sheriff’s deputy to pull her over. But then the 46-year-old plucked a pink-handled pistol from her bag, aimed at the deputy and pulled the trigger twice. The gun only clicked. It didn’t fire. The deputy’s gun, however, was in working order.” For all of you “cops are not special” types out there . . .
This is the kind of shit that cops potentially face EVERY TIME they pull over a car. Until she was pulled over, this foolish drunk (but then, I repeat myself) was already driving a loaded weapon capable of wiping out any number of innocent people. A close friend of mine lost his entire family to a drunk driver – wife, kids – gone in a blink. What cops do is very important. They deserve a certain amount of deference, even if they are assholes.
1. I am very happy the deputy is okay.
2. I agree that what cops do is important.
3. “They deserve a certain amount of deference, even if they are assholes.”
Nope. You reap what you sow.
I don’t know how anyone could do the job more than a few days and NOT turn into an asshole. Don’t like dealing with them? Don’t break the law. It works for me.
Me too. Except, of course, when they’re doing some “special enforcement” or “saturation patrols”.
DigDoug makes the point better than I did – If any given cop is an asshole, it is because of things like this.
This deputy will have to cope with the taking of a human life for the rest of his days. That weighs on some folk pretty hard.
Right right, because it’s impossible that the cop was Ann asshole all along and just became a cop to be an asshole with authority. Because that’s never happened.
I treat every officer that I meet with respect and friendliness, because for all I know, he is an upstanding gentleman. But if, during our exchange, he shows himself to be an asshole, he loses all respect. I don’t mind if a cop is gruff during a traffic stop or the like, because as you said, he approaches everyone with the possibility of a lethal encounter. But there is a big difference between “gruff” and asshole.
As for digdoug, really? You’ve never broken the speed limit in your life? Never forgotten a turn signal? Never missed a stop sign? You must be Mister f$&kin Rogers.
Didn’t mean to suggest I’m totally pure. I speed like everybody else. I just try to be smart about it. Also, like I tell my wife when she offers helpful observations: “There ain’t a cop in this state who’s man enough to pull ME over! I wish one of those jar-headed pussies would just TRY IT!” So far, her eyes have not rolled out of her head.
And I agree with you that there are some officers who’s motivation lies in the fact that they started out being controlling assholes and decided the way to be a really good one is to have authority over everyone. Still, as long as he responds to calls and does his job and is a controlling asshole to the right people, I can give him a pass.
I wouldn’t want a cold-hearted bitch to run a day-care center, and I wouldn’t want a bleeding-heart liberal to fight in a war. We all have our strengths, weaknesses, and personality traits, and if we’re lucky we find a vocation that matches them well enough to succeed.
Most cops do an excellent job and deserve our thanks.
A very small number are assholes (ie. the guys who pepper spray nonviolent protesters), and those deserve every bit of contempt from the public that they get.
The real shame is that when LE blindly line up to support other LE who are the assholes.
But yes, most cops do an excellent job and deserve our thanks.
In reality, cops rarely deserve our thanks. More than 9/10 times they pull someone over, it’s to generate revenue, i.e. steal. Nothing more. Well, sometimes they fish for other non-crimes, like illegal gun or drug possession. Protection could much better be provided by eliminating all gun and anti-self defense laws in conjunction with private security.
Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and Timothy mcveigh were picked up during traffic stops, along with thousands of other violent criminals. Call it “fishing” if you want, but that’s one of the tools used to catch bad guys, and it works.
I’ll make a trade where they can pull over people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Timothy McVeigh if cops stop writing chintz tickets to people who aren’t serial killers. Yes, lets erode all freedoms on the off chance we might catch someone abusing them. You do realize this better safe than sorry argument is the exact same argument people use to justify taking guns away. In terms of speed limits, if 80% of the driving population breaks the law daily, then it’s a bad law.
Writing tickets = “eroding all freedoms”?
That’s quite an ambitious leap don’t you think?
Sure, everybody speeds. I get it. But anybody who doesn’t want to be bothered by a traffic stop has the FREEDOM to obey all traffic laws, maintain all their safety devices, and keep their tag from expiring, in order to avoid such stops.
Besides, I’m sure many LEOs would love to make your trade, if only it wasn’t a fantasy.
In defense of Cops, my beef is mostly with the legislatures who force it down cops throats to write those tickets. It’s not the police departments fault we have speed cameras either. My point on eroding all freedoms is the slippery slope is real and the people in charge do a little at a time and since it always seems “sensible” until they get to the big stuff they really wanted using precedent the courts set with the little stuff. The Interstate commerce clause is a perfect example and so is the way lots of people “interpret” 2nd amendment. I have no doubt we’d find more illegal guns and drugs if we searched every single car at a traffic stop. We’d also find a lot of stuff if we randomly searched houses, but we have a constitution for a reason.
So, by that logic, we should build checkpoints at every interstate ramp and mall parking lot, and ask citizens to present their papers for inspection, yes? After all, we’d catch even more serial killers that way.
Dumb luck resulting in catching an honest to god bad guy does not justify “fishing” the other 99.999% of the time.
I think you and I come closer to agreeing on things than disagreeing. Your point would have merit and I’d be right there with you IF I saw any evidence of police routinely stopping people for no reason. If it’s out there, please show it to me.
Even the most minor reason I can think of, a busted tail light, is cause to stop someone. It’s a real safety issue. And it’s something that people get stopped for because if the OTHER light burns out too, then you have an accident waiting to happen.
IF, in the course of the chat about the tail light, an officer sees evidence of a crime or sees someone matching the description of a suspect, what else would you have him do? Wave it off?
Speaking to my own experiences, and those with similar interests (read: loud, fast things) I’ve pretty well run the gambit of being pulled for no reason to be fished. Meticulous vehicle, sane speed, no erratic behavior. But, the car isn’t a SUV or minivan weaving between lanes or driving over gore points, so clearly I’m suspicious. I’ve seen the same repeated ad nauseum with various friends and associates.
That said, my own experiences are fairly irrelevant. Were this sort of thing not commonplace, cops would not carry the mantle they do, the general perception of the public would be a positive one, and you wouldn’t see eleventy billion videos and web sites instructing you as to why it’s a particularly bad idea to talk to the police under any circumstances.
The perception of the police today is vastly different than it was 15-20 years ago, and it is almost entirely due to the ever increasing militarisation of police forces, the “us vs. them” mentality, and revenue quotas that have driven officers to borderline (and in some cases not so borderline) illegal acts in routine traffic and equipment enforcement.
So why don’t we just dragnet through everyone’s homes everyday. We’d find lots of “wanted” people that way.
More details here.
The woman was described as suicidal, with an 18-pack of beer and a gun in the vehicle with her. She was speaking on a cell phone with a friend at the time of the stop, and told the friend that she had a gun, would not allow the cop to arrest her.
Thankfully, her boyfriend had secretly unloaded her gun before she drove away from him, as he was fearful she would hurt herself or others.
Sounds like “suicide by cop” to me.
How’d you like to be the implement that some random stranger chooses as her suicide method? Good Lord….
So much for the peace sign on the back of her car.
Respect, not deference. Respect is earned, not deserved. And yes, putting on the uniform and doing the job earns respect. But it can also be lost, and the abusive actions of some officers and the failure of others to police their own ranks has done a lot to damage the respect many Americans have for the police.
So I respect the job, but individuals will be judged by their actions. And the a$$holes get nothing but contempt.
I disagree. I assume a cop is going to be a jerk, so I keep my hands where they can be seen and say yes sir, no sir.
If a cop is rude or unprofessional, his name and badge number are on the ticket and I can complain to his supervisor. The supervisor calling him out after roll-call is always going to be more satisfactory than any pissing contest I get into with the cop.
I am a bit prejudiced, given that my stepfather was a cop – and a self-identified asshole. He was a railroad detective, and the people he dealt with were almost invariably human debris looking to vandalize or steal railroad property.
I’m not saying behave contemptuously to the face of an officer behaving like an a$$hole. That’d just be silly. For good or ill, the power disparity favors the police. And unnecessarily antagonizing them is a bad idea. This would of course be distinctly different from insisting on your rights as a citizen.
As to personal interactions…I handle them in a similar fashion to what you describe. But from a completely different mindset. As you noted in the post, every traffic stop has the potential for extreme and unexpected violence for the officer. Percentages don’t matter from their perspective, much like DGU for the civilian. The cost of assuming safety for the officer is just too high. So I understand their position and I take steps to de-escalate the encounter by ensuring my behavior is non-threatening: interior lights on, hands in plain sight, no sudden moves, compliance and courtesy. This behavior is in everybody’s best interest. I’m not doing this because I expect a cop to be a jerk. Quite the contrary, I expect a cop to be a professional. I just feel that part of my responsibility as a citizen is to behave civilly and not escalate a tense situation.
My comment in regards to contempt for abuse of authority and misbehavior from law enforcement is a societal one. We as a society should be very vocal about our disapproval of bad actors operating under color of law. We should be vocal in our condemnation and hold those who we grant authority to a much higher standard. We should be vigilant and unforgiving of misconduct. It is essential if we wish to remain free.
There is an old expression:
“You knew the risk when you put on the uniform.”
When you choose to become a Cop, you KNOW this is the kind of thing you will be dealing with. So having to deal with people like that is not a blank check to be an asshole. If that is too tall and order for you to handle, quit!
I work with very, very dangerous (I mean if you smell it, you are already dead) chemicals on a daily basis. I know the risks. I like my job. There are many other people who face death and disability every day to keep the economy going. Why do cops get a special pass to be jackasses when being a police officer is not even in the top 20 most dangerous professions to have?
I can assure you, that if I were to be around you when you work with chemicals, I would defer to your instructions, even if you were an asshole.
i second that.
1) How anybody could think this cop was less than 100% justified baffles me.
2) “Dancing queen…..” Wow I hope I don’t die to Abba.
If I were going to buy the big one I’d like to hear LostProphets’ ‘Last Traid Home’ as my last song.
+1 – Not sure what my death theme ought to be…
“Highway to Hell” – great song, but too predictable
“Getting Away With Murder” – great song, but too incriminating
“Who Wants to Live Forever” – great song, but too emo
“Final Countdown” – just about right
I’ve thought about it for a few days now, and I’ve decided that it would be “Free Bird” by Skynyrd. Not just any part of that song, because it’s a long song with a few distinct parts to it. Specifically, I would want to go out to the part in the guitar solo with all the cymbal chokes. Yep.
U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Fatalities per 100,000 Year 1999
Commercial Fishermen 162
Timber Cutters 154
Air Pilots 65
Construction Laborers 37
Garbage Collectors 34
Truck Drivers 28
Gardeners (non farm) 11
To qoute you “This is the kind of shit that TRUCK DRIVERS potentially face EVERY TIME they go on a road trip”. My god. For all you types “truck drivers are not special” out there.
Strange. I can’t recall the last time a pilot was anything but courteous when he addressed us over the intercom. Huh.
1) The death or injury of anyone is tragic.
2) There is a difference between a crab fisherman being sent overboard by a big wave, and some drunken woman pulling a gun on you.
3) An assault on an electrician is not, at the same time, an assault on the rule of law.
Waves, timbers, the ground rising up to smite thee for failing to maintenance thou thy airspeed are impersonal events. It has a different psychological and moral impact than when a man loses control of their truck and is grievously injured or killed than when another human pulls a gun and tries to kill you.
Some may not see the difference, but it is there nonetheless.
I’m especially impressed by your point 3. How brainwashed does one have to be to even offer that as an argument?
How many of the occupations on your list there include deaths from things that are not accidents or otherwise not intentional? When a truck driver dies, he crashed or a fork lift fell on him. When a cop dies, it’s because someone killed him or he was killed trying to quickly get somewhere to help someone. A truck driver can go to work in the morning without wondering if someone is going to try to kill him that day. If the difference means nothing to you, you’re beyond help.
Actually, far more cops die from causes related to alcoholism than they do from on the job injuries.
As a truck-drive of over 25 years, I do NOT agree with this: A truck driver can go to work in the morning without wondering if someone is going to try to kill him that day.
That statement is not true. The NTSB stated that 75% of car-truck accidents are caused by car drivers, in my experience, I find that to be true.
Your statement after that, is an appeal to emotion, a fallacy.
While I understand your point, I still think there is a difference. Truck drivers are not targets for other people in the same way cops are. Cops represent the rule of law in a way civilian workers do not. A trucker killed or injured in an accident caused by a negligent person is still morally and psychologically different than a cop who is attacked intentionally because he or she is a cop.
This is where I am trying to draw a distinction.
So, as a truck driver, you go to work every day with the knowledge that bad people might intentionally try to kill you, because of who you are and what you represent?
My statement stands, your logic falls.
If you think cops only pull people over that break the law, you’re delusional, at best. Far too many officers break the law as much as they enforce it. So to think that we should just cave in is just insane.
Partially why my mother has a lawsuit and they are trying to settle out of court – they’re losing.
That being said, not all cops are jackasses with a gun and this guy did what he should have done.
Yeah, I know better. I live in a town where, among other things, this happened…
I was stopped once for being a long-haired 18yo dude driving a Camaro at night. My car was ransacked for thirty minutes while five patrol cars from THREE departments watched on (city, county, and state). After the fact I did a little research and learned that the reason stated for stopping me, “I saw you stuff something under your seat,” was insufficient and his search was unlawful. It was clearly a case of “Hey, there’s one of them hippie fag types, you just KNOW he’s got some weed on him.” (I was clean.)
I spent a decade or more bashing all cops at every opportunity, then I noticed that all subsequent interactions with police were pretty courteous and professional. Then to help myself understand a little better I spent one day on a “ride-along” with my local PD. THAT changed EVERYTHING.
Everyone who dislikes cops should go on a ride-along. Get a tiny taste of what they do and then just TRY to maintain an anti-cop attitude. I dare you.
There are 1600+ sworn officers in my local PD alone. Put 1600+ of ANY demographic together and there are going to be at least a hundred assholes and a couple of real scumbags. As a photographer, I can PROMISE that if you gathered 1600 photographers together, at least half would be assholes and dozens of them would be criminals.
PS: I don’t blindly support cops just to be a fanboi. I strongly disagree with Mr. Fusaro’s “disarm CCW holders at traffic stops” policy because it doesn’t make sense. In general, though, I tend to give them a pass on most things, because I (and you and almost everybody else) never have all the facts.
Well, regardless of who is right or wrong, these comments definitively confirm that the police have a problem with how they are interfacing with citizens. It is amazing how cynical, jaded, and anti-police some folks are; but there’s got to be a reason–aside from a general dislike of authority figures–a significant number of people are this way.
I have never been hassled by an officer. Yes, I’ve been pulled over some some BS reason; but the officer realized it was BS when we were discussing the stop and just let me go with only a verbal “reminder.” The only police officers I’ve ever worked with were 100% professional, and the only a-hole officer I’ve known was a retired former Chicago cop. (The guy who tried to convince me that Illinois has concealed carry … You know, because HE could.)
The driver pulled a gun out on him and pressed the trigger twice. No more needs to be said. If someone pointed a gun at YOU and pressed the trigger twice it may change your mind about him not doing the right thing. I guess one could debate that he should have recognized the absense of BANG when she tried to fire the gun, but what if shot number three, four, five, and maybe six actually worked? The officer got lucky that night – with respect to the fact that the driver’s gun was empty – not that he had to shoot to stop her attack. He’s probably still cleaning out his pants, and he’s alive – that’s a good thing.
We also have lost a friend’s wife and two children to one drunk driver’s actions – in the middle of the day. Hit them head-on going down the wrong side of the road. He was charged with three counts, but our friend’s wife and two children are gone.
The police are not your friends. Just because they occasionally do the right thing such as take a drunk driver off the road, does not mean they are going to help you. I have been helped by criminals, I have been helped by strangers, but I have never in my life been helped by a police officer. As an independent minded citizen who would prefer to take care of himself, make his own money, and live a free life, this automatically makes me an enemy of my local, state, and federal governments, and their badge wearing cohorts.
I have an associate degree in Criminal Justice because I originally wanted to be a police officer. After doing ride along and going through the classes, primarily taught by LEOs, I realized that I did not want to peruse a career in molesting innocent citizens, which seems to be 70% of your average police officers job.
There might be a few good officers out there, but I’m yet to meet them. There are too many police officers. They have too much power. They are corrupt, they are spiteful, and they are vengfull, and they hide behind a badge that no longer stands for what it used to. Now days a police officers power comes from the AR-15 in his trunk, his body armor, and his pistol and all of his friends with the same. They no longer have our interests at heart. They want to control us through intimidation, disarm us, and make sure we fall in line with big brothers marching orders.
Why don’t you go ahead and Google the percentage of violent offenders in prison versus non violent offenders and tell me what you think about that?
Can I ask what part of the country you’re in?
I guess I’ve been lucky and haven’t been exposed to the same stuff as you. It’s either that, or one of us has a strong bias.
I live in the United States of America, in Washington state. I live in Snohomish County and I work in either Snohomish or King county.
Sounds like rather harsh language, and although it seems like a generalization, he’s right… There’s only one reason a cop’s going to stop you – because he believes that you are breaking the law. A cop friend of mine bragged that he could follow ANY car long enough to find a violation of the law and pull that driver over. When cops arrive at a crime scene they are there to protect the scene for the sake of evidence. They’re there to collect information for the prosecution. That absolute power really gets to their heads – seen it in action personally. Even though one ‘brother’ misbehaves you had better not mess with him/her – just move on. It’s not worth the anxiety of always looking over your shoulder waiting for another police ‘brother’ to make their revenge. The office of Internal Affairs can help, but you had better hold on to your hat, as here come the threats. Absolute power.
The only way to protect yourself from the cops is to BE one yourself.
Perhaps you have heard about this guy named Rudi Giullani. He was the mayor of some east coast city. Before he became mayor Mr Giullani’s city was unsafe for the average citizen at any time of the day or night so one of his first acts was to order the police to arrest people for petty breaches of the law. Something you would call harrassment by power mad officers of the law. Funny thing happened after the police started doing this. Many of the “harrassed” had warrants out for them for other crmes many not so “non-violent,” After a while the streets of this city became safe for the average Joe and you could go out at night without fear.
A non-violent offender is just someone who got caught for breaking the law in a non-violent way. Maybe he broke into your car and took your property. Maybe he conned you out of your money. Perhaps he was just high on weed or otherwise drunk and disorderly. But what ever he did he undermined civil society and the rule of law. People who create “non-violent” disorder help pave the way for violent criminals to rule the streets.
As far as traffic stops go I have never been stopped for something that wasn’t illegal. When I get ticket I let the cop do the his job and offer no excuses. A couple of times it has gotten me off with warning becuase I don’t whine. I don’t believe anybody above the age of 21 who says “the cops stopped me for no reason.” If the speed limit 55 and you are going 60 he has a right to ticket you. I accept the responsiblity for my actions behind the wheel and I expect any adult to do the same.
So some East Coast City decideds that it’s subjects aren’t fit to defend themselves and it takes away their tools of defense. Crime then skyrockets. Then the City decides that certain protections like the Fourth Amendment are kinda annoying and starts ignoring them. So now the city can swoop in and save the day by locking up all the bad guys and all the subjects lived happily everafter… as long as no one tried to save themselves.
Government creates a problem, then provides a solution that involves growing their power.
Arresting the turnstyle jumper, graffitier or vandal doesn’t violate the Fourth Ammendment. Neither does rousting the squeege guy. Allowing petty lawlessness creates an environment that breeds more serious crimes.
You complain about cops doing traffic enforcement and say that they should fight crime. Which is it?
Gee.. is this the same city where the cops planted drugs on people to meet a drug arrest quota?
One more thing — Yes the City of New York was the cause of the problem. During the John Lindsey era the City decided that police should be concerned with “real crime” so they let the petty stuff go. When you let the social fabric unravel at the edges the entire edifice will eventually come down. Gun prohibition made it worse for the citizens when the thugs took over streets but it all started with notion that some crimes were harmless. While an individual crime may appear to be harmless to society the accumulation of all those “harmless” crimes destroys civil society.
Except the “Broken Window” theory has been pretty well disproven as a “correlation = causality” fallacy.
I can see the points on both sides of this debate, but I think that both sides are missing the real issue here. We have an erosion of respect for the rule of law not because citizens are louts or because some police officers are a$$holes and selectively enforce the “law” (some of which is blatantly unconstitutional) but rather because we have a society that has completely lost its moral compass (and reverence for God) and therefore produces large quantities of louts, a$$holes and public servants (at all levels) that have contempt for the rule of law (I’m looking at you, Corzine). Tell me I’m wrong. Please.
Society has always been full of louts, etc.
As far as I can determine, almost every society since writing began has had an element that felt the enforcers of rules were nothing but thugs. What’s more rare is to find a strong element of the populace who is sympathetic to the enforcers of rules.
One could say this country exists because of an erosion of respect for the rule of law.
This country is one of the few that is founded on the principle of the citizen being watchful of the government as opposed to government being watchful of the citizen.
I wouldn’t say wrong, but that is not the only reason. The governments of the US (from local to federal) have done much to harm to their citizens over the years:
– Unconstitutional laws which put restrictions on the most basic freedoms. Just look up the censorship and “decency” rules the FCC has put in place. Not to mention host of other speech and assembly restrictions, and that is just the 1st amendment.
– Career politicians focusing on themselves rather than their country and getting away with illegal actions constantly. I was not even born when Nixon was in office and it makes my blood boil that Ford pardoned him. On top of this, a broken political and electoral system ruled by two parties, where choice is all but removed. Meaning you can’t even get the person you want in office elected, to fix your grievances, if they don’t meet the criteria of Dems or Reps.
– Support of folly causes and departments. It would take all day to list them all here but I’m sure most agree the ATF and the War on Drugs are making things worse.
These are but a few points out of the many grievances US citizens have with their country. As such, many citizens of this country no longer feel respect for their government, its elected officials, or its polices and laws that it has in place and enforces. So if someone doesn’t feel the government is doing a good job and doesn’t believe it can be changed, it is rather impossible for one to obey said government and begin to question how certain polices came about in the first place. After all, there was a time in American history when no police force existed, it was the responsibility of the people to police themselves. I believe we may need to research and decide if it is time to go back to the way things used to be.
I have had about eight interactions (a juvenile duck hunting after hours and the remainder were traffic stops) with a LEO in my 50 years. Six of those LEOs acted (unnecessarily) like buttholes. Query: If a LEO can shoot a citizen if the citizen points a firearm at him or her; then why can’t a citizen shoot a LEO when the LEO points a firearms at them?
“For all of you “cops are not special” types out there . . .”
“This is the kind of shit that cops potentially face EVERY TIME they pull over a car.”
“What cops do is very important. They deserve a certain amount of deference, even if they are assholes.”
Oh Christ, not this again.
Difficult job? Check.
Dangerous job? It’s in the Top Ten so… Check.
Deserving of thanks? I think so, but I also thank my doctor, my dentist, and my garbage man.
Elevated to a higher caste? Uhhhhh… no.
Some of the most hard working, “wouldn’t take a quarter off the sidewalk” honest, salt of the earth people I know are cops. I respect them because they’re genuine human beings, not because they have a badge and a uniform and have a slightly higher chance of getting shot at than I do.
A badge, a gun, and a uniform earns you nothing but my compliance, and even that’s circumstantial.
Well…in one town I lived in a State Cop pulled over a guy in a pick up truck who jumped out with an AK-47 and greased the Cop. The Officer died and the truck driver got away. Being a small town, people knew who it was ,and they arrested the guy in Church the following Sunday morning. This guy was probably not all there and I had heard that the local yokel cops had harrased him several times. I guess he vowed that the next cop that stopped him would be wasted. I guess he was right.
There are good cops and bad cops. My Uncle was a Deputy and I had a Great Grandfather who was a Town Constable. I have had friends on the Sherriff’s Department.
First, cops are paid to do this job. If they don’t like it, they can quit the job, go find another job where they don’t have to deal with the public.
Second, cops are paid rather well (absurdly well) in many states, to the extent that their pay and comp packages are simply not sustainable. Many people in these states where the LEO unions have negotiated these absurdly lush pay packages have had their fill of this sanctimony from cops. Again, see point one above: If a cop doesn’t like the work, quit the job and go find a job more suited to their liking. Since my tax dollars are, in part, paying their lush pay packages, I have a justification for expecting better behavior out of them. If LEO’s don’t want to deal with my expectations of their behavior, then I’d suggest they go talk to the Magic Money Fairy and ask her for some money that didn’t come from the taxpayers.
Third, law enforcement officers at all levels of government (local, state and federal) are exhibiting increased levels of corruption and law breaking of their own. Much of the increasing acrimony directed against LEO’s is a result of LEO’s “closing ranks” when allegations of corruption, self-dealing and law breaking are made against specific LEO’s. If LEO’s want respect from the public, they have to earn it every day, and that requires that they hold themselves to a higher standard.
Consider this: There is a long and growing list of no-knock and knock warrant searches and “dynamic entries” conducted by LEO’s all over this country where there was no reason to enter the dwelling in such a manner. The occupants are terrorized, many times family pets are shot on sight, and if the LEO’s were flat-out wrong? No harm, no foul. I’m talking even in cases where the LEO’s serving these warrants weren’t on the right *street*. As far as I’m concerned, if the LEO’s don’t have the correct dwelling matching the description and address on the warrant issued by the court, they should not be covered by sovereign immunity. They’re invading a home without a warrant, and therefore taxpayers should not have to defend these actions in court. If a cop can’t trouble himself to read the warrant and service paperwork, then he shouldn’t be a cop at all. Allowing said LEO to defend himself in court with only his own financial resources if he invades a home without a warrant would solve this problem quickly.
Making sure that LEO’s are liable for wrongful death judgements when they shoot someone in an unwarranted home invasion would really solve this problem quickly.
It was noted in the RepublicMoNews article that of the five shots fired by the cop, four hit the woman, including at least one head shot.
So I say, “Nice group, sir!”
(Of course it was close range, but in condition red and at night, that’s as good as anyone could hope for. And compared to some well-publicized clusterfarks of cop carelessness, this guy shines.)
Funny how alcohol can cloud one’s judgement.
Screw cops. There’s clearly something very wrong with a person who wants to make it their life’s work to ride around and ruin people’s days and lives all day long.
Having said that: Drunk driving laws are bullshit. Not only are the standards always creeping lower and lower (remember the good ol’ days of point-one-oh, anyone?) – they’re based solely on something that might happen, not something that actually has happened.
Somebody who drinks and drives might cause an Somebody who drinks and drives might do this or do that, whatever. The fact is that in the majority of drunk driving cases, no one has been injured and no property has been damaged. Police are out solely to enforce the will of the political caste (who can afford limousines and chauffeurs) upon the working caste.
Anybody who dares argue with the tired meme that “they’re protecting the public,” or that horseshit “the law is the law” should go promptly read up on the too-numerous-to-count incidents where LEOs have let fellow LEOs go after stopping them for suspected intoxicated driving and the perp flashed a badge or some such.
This post reeks of alcohol.
durr hurr hurr
Haven’t touched the stuff in years.
But, naturally, since I don’t partake in the deification and hero-worship so prevalent with regards to our enforcer class, there must be something wrong with me.
haw haw haw
“Haven’t touched the stuff in years.”
Tells me all I need to know.
Nice one rummy, come back when you’re sober..
This is a very good point, drunk driving laws are actually laws that remove responsibility from the driver and pass it to the state. All laws restrict behavior and remove responsibility in all cases, there are possible cases where rules of behavior are necessary, but be very very carefully before enacting them.
I don’t know, it seems pretty straightforward: If you’re going to use public roads, you have a responsibility not to be intoxicated and threaten the lives of all around you. Once you fail in your responsibility, someone else has to step in and remove you, the drunken asshole in control of a two-ton death machine, from those public roads.
As a kid running around the streets of New York, I never liked cops. That was on me. As a lawyer, I learned to distrust cops. That was on them, because I saw too many cases of vicious police brutality, falsified evidence and well-rehearsed perjury. As a citizen, I know that most cops are decent human beings who will nevertheless lie, cheat and steal to protect their “brothers.” Yes, it’s a tough job. So what. Let me know who has an easy job.
“They deserve a certain amount of deference, even if they are assholes.”
Um no. Neither do you when you are being asinine.
Respect is always a two way street. Anyone who crosses the line deserves no deference.
Heat and kitchens…
I’m with Ralph on this one. (It occurs to me I’m usually with Ralph, although we haven’t met in person.) Detective Ed Owens is certainly special; so special he allegedly tried to frame his stepdaughter for manslaughter to save his own pathetic, perjuring hide:
Cops are scum. The only thing worse than a beat cop is a SWAT team member. I’ve lost count of the number of stories I’ve read of innocent people shot dead in their homes by SWAT teamers executing erroneous petty drug warrants. America is a police state no different than Mubarak’s egypt was.
OK, I watched this three times. To the poster calling the cop “an asshole”- could you explain that exactly? To the person alleging “molesting” – WTF?
I’m NOT trained as a cop, so I can only speak to this from a common-sense perspective, but I thought he actually took quite a bit of a risk to save a drunk, reaching in to turn off the car, to disconnect the seat belt.
Then he responded to someone shooting at him, by doing exactly as trained?
Saving his own life, and perhaps the next cop, who showed up shortly thereafter, too, if this person was otherwise able to reload somehow.
Hindsight is always 20/20, so what would YOU arm chair gun-fighters have done better, knowing what he knew then? Tell us your credentials, too, please.
I’d like to hear more opinions from an LEO, who has served in the field, but if not, I respect that in deference to not wanting to “try to teach a pig to dance” here, and in the meantime, heres a true fact-
from someone I know well, who trains others in defensive tactics, who works the street, and who says emphatically – traffic stops are one of, if not THE MOST dangerous unpredictable and high risk situations they face, and they do it daily.
Has any of the angry anti-cop posters here thought even a little bit about how that cop is going to have to live with this, for the rest of his life, wondering what he could have done better, to save that life?
I have 23 years experience working in the military, and if my small experience there and with the cops I know is accurate, I will say that 90% do the job, in order to serve, to save and protect.
They face these kinds of split second decisions all the time, and deal with the ugly aftermath of other crimes, including hauling dead kids out of cars wrecked by drunk drivers, and worse.
There was an incident in So Cal where a local district attorney, took her own life with her gun, while sitting in her car, while the cop who stopped her at request of concerned family and other cops from the adjoining town were looking for her- in a ‘welfare check’. How would you arm-chair experts have handled that one?
Robert, please tell me this place isnt going to degenerate into more of the same hateful spewing of anti-cop BS that I can find at any of a couple dozen gun forums and loonatic conspiracy theory websites. You have wayyy too much more good stuff to offer, thats interesting and useful, than this. Free speech and all that, of course, and freedom to vote with my feet too.
+1 Fred. As a matter of fact, +1,000.
Tim, thanks for the job that you do.
“I have 23 years experience working in the military, and if my small experience there and with the cops I know is accurate, I will say that 90% do the job, in order to serve, to save and protect.”
Huh, who’d have guessed that a cop / military person would talk about how awesome the police / military are.
I’ll agree that there are some who do the job (military and police) because they think that they’re doing good – I’m generous and like to think of these people as naive and not just stupid. However, they’re the minority. By far the largest group are the ones who just couldn’t find anything better to do for a job and it pays well enough for a job that requires zero education beyond high school, not to mention that you get the added perk of no more speeding tickets and union support for when you screw up and should be fired (but won’t be). Then there’s the other end of the spectrum (I’ll be generous again and say that it’s small) of people who do it purely because they want to push people around. They want to be Officer Tough Guy and use their gun to bully people and then beat them (or even kill them) just for kicks – because they know that the odds of actually getting in trouble for it are pretty slim.
I’ve seen many decent people go into the military / police force and come out complete arrogant jerks who I wouldn’t trust to shine my shoes, let alone be given the authority to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. The majority of the work done by police has nothing to do with actual crimes (rape, murder, theft) and are all either about making money for the department / local government (tickets) or about enforcing their idea of a “perfect” society on others (the war on drugs is a great example of this) and ruining many lives in the process, not to mention sucking hard earned money from taxpayers to fund their “moral” crusade. As for the military? Fighting the Japanese in WWII and going after the Taliban (and ONLY the Taliban / Osama) were the only justified uses of US military force in a CENTURY. The rest have all been wars to try and create an American Empire to “rule the world” and had nothing to do with national defense or protecting our freedoms.
“There was an incident in So Cal where a local district attorney, took her own life with her gun, while sitting in her car, while the cop who stopped her at request of concerned family and other cops from the adjoining town were looking for her- in a ‘welfare check’. How would you arm-chair experts have handled that one?”
How would I handle it? I’d let her make her own damn decision – as is her right. If she doesn’t think life is worth living, who the hell are you or anyone else to try to force her to keep living? What other big life decisions do you think you have the “divine” right to force on others? Whether or not to have kids? Get married? What career? It’s THEIR choice on how to live their life and if they want to end it – NOT yours or anyone else’s.
You say that now but what if that person, squeezing that trigger was your son, daughter, wife, mother, father, brother or sister? Would you change your mind then or would you say, “It’s your damn life, do whatever you will with it.”
You wouldn’t and if you did than you must have some serious family problems.
I would say that, because I don’t have a burning need to control others. Apparently you do though – sounds like you’re the one with the family issues.
You know that old saying “if you love them, let them go” – it means if you care about someone, you’ll let them make their own decisions and do what they feel is best, even if you don’t agree with them.
You’re correct. My 14 year old cousin was killed in a drunk driving accident, along with her best friend and her mother. The woman in this story could’ve done the exact same thing this night.
On the other side, if you’re truly that depressed that you want to kill yourself than your life (with few exceptions like being tortured to death) can’t get any worse. No matter how down your life is things can always get better.
Yes, she COULD have killed someone – but last time I checked, having the potential to harm someone (such as owning / carrying a gun) was not a crime (unless it’s drunk driving). That’s ridiculously biased to charge someone for the POTENTIAL to commit a crime (ever see Minority Report?).
It doesn’t matter if you think life is somehow inherently valuable simply because it’s life, it’s not your right to decide if someone should be forced to live a life that they don’t like.
Roger, that’s the argument I’m going to use. Don’t you think a mothers suicide would forever scar the life of her children?
So humble me, explain why it was perfectly acceptable for her to kill herself? I’m looking for a bit more than, “It was her choice.” Maybe I’m arrogant but I don’t see that as a valid choice.
Because you think that life in and of itself somehow inherently has value – it doesn’t. Life is only as valuable as the happiness it provides the person. If a person’s life is so crappy that they want out, they have every right to commit suicide. Would you argue that someone should stay in an abusive and unsatisfying marriage / relationship because relationships somehow inherently have value just because they’re relationships? I doubt it. It’s the same exact concept.
T.G.After WWI, a truly worthless adventure, Americans decided that they weren’t going to use military force to create “an American Empire.” This led to a Second War that you think was worth fighting and left us as the only nation capable of filling the role of the world’s policeman.
Using your logic, I don’t see how even WWII was justified. We could have built up sufficient defenses against the Nazis and left Asia to Asians. The only reason the Japanese attacked us was because we were interfering in Asian affairs. If we stayed out of the China conflict the they would have left us alone.
By the way the US spent the greatest proportion of time involved in foreign wars during the period 1789-1815. Explain.
Wrong. We caused WWII by interfering in WWI (which we had no business doing) and then brutally raping Germany with reparations that lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. The world does not need a country to try to rule it – that’s arrogance and lust for power, pure and simple.
“The only reason the Japanese attacked us was because we were interfering in Asian affairs. If we stayed out of the China conflict the they would have left us alone.”
True. We provoked theme, but since they did actually attack US soil, fighting the Japanese was justified.
“By the way the US spent the greatest proportion of time involved in foreign wars during the period 1789-1815. Explain.”
That’s still less than 30 years. We’ve spent almost the last 100 years inventing wars because it’s unconstitutional in a time of peace to have a standing army (without explicit congressional approval), thus after WWI we’ve always fabricated reasons to be at war to justify keeping a standing army to intimidate the citizens of the country and enforce whatever agenda politicians want.
“…We’ve spent almost the last 100 years inventing wars because it’s unconstitutional in a time of peace to have a standing army (without explicit congressional approval)…”
I am embarrassed for you that you show this kind of ignorance. When Congress appropriates the money for a standing Army it authorizes it. The Constitution does not limit standing Armies to wartime.
The reparation scheme was opposed by President Wilson. It was product of British, French and Italians machinations.
You apparently don’t know enough history to get the point about the wars of the early Republic. 1789-1815 is the era of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. When Europe, and later Asia, was at war so was the United States whether we were a minor player or running the show.
“When Congress appropriates the money for a standing Army it authorizes it.”
No, it doesn’t. Show me a bill where Congress says “We’re going to us $X for a standing army”. They talk about funding different military departments which does NOT inherently require a standing military – they simply abuse the fact that most people don’t know jack about the Constitution and thus don’t demand that every year Congress votes on whether or not to have a standing army.
“The reparation scheme was opposed by President Wilson. It was product of British, French and Italians machinations.”
It doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t for US intervention, Germany would have won the war (and rightfully so since France and Russia were the initial aggressors against Germany) and there would have been no reparations.
“You apparently don’t know enough history to get the point about the wars of the early Republic.”
The point about the early wars is that it doesn’t matter what we did for 30 years (despite the founding fathers explicitly saying not to get involved in foreign wars), it doesn’t change that our pro-imperialist people like you have caused us to spend a century trying to rule the world and creating our greatest enemies (the Nazi’s, the Taliban, etc). These people didn’t wake up one day and say “Hey, let’s hate the US” – they spent years being abused by the US because our idiotic politicians think that they have a divine right to rule the world and murder (or attempt to anyways) anyone who disagrees with them.
I posted this in another comment, but it’s relevant to your pro-imperial views.
How about we do some role reversal – how would you feel if another country (say China) decided that our leaders were “bad men” and they attacked the US and invaded to “liberate” us from our “evil capitalist rulers”? You’d be pissed and say that they had no right to invade and try to force us to have the government that they feel is best – yet you think it’s OK for the US to do that very thing to other countries. How do you possibly justify the hypocrisy?
“[…] traffic stops are one of, if not THE MOST dangerous unpredictable and high risk situations they face, and they do it daily.”
Boo hoo hoo. If they’re worried so much about their safety, maybe they should have become pastry chefs instead of armed government enforcers.
Sorry, but I’ve gotten to the point of no longer feeling bad when someone tries to off a cop. Yes, SOMETIMES cops do valuable work of finding and arresting rapists, murderers, and thieves. However, most of their time is spent harassing people just trying to go about their business (though how much of that is cops decision and how much of it is forced on them by their asshole superiors who want them to hustle up some more money from the station, I don’t know). Yes, this woman was drunk and should not have been driving and from what we can tell, didn’t have good reason to try to shoot him – but again, due to all the harm they cause on a regular basis, I’ve lost any sympathy for them.
Hold up, you say that you lost sympathy for someone who was doing the right thing by taking a drunken driver off the road, who had a loaded firearm and who had poor enough judgement to attempt to kill a cop.
Sure, if that cop would’ve known damn sure that that revolver wouldn’t have fired a single shot would he have done anything other than arrest her? Probably not. You don’t know if that third pull of the trigger would’ve killed that officer and neither did he. Think about his family man.
On the other hand, I can’t watch the video because I’m currently stationed in Iraq. Which brings me to my next point-I don’t know if you support the troops or not but theoretically if you did why would a cop be any different than a soldier? We’re fighting for the same things, for that cop he fought so you and your family can drive around and not be hit by a drunk driver.
But it’s all good, I’m sure you’d have made the exact same decision as that cop if you were in his shoes.
Try re-reading what I wrote. I said that due to all the bad things police do, I’ve lost any sympathy for them getting shot on the rare occasions that they do something worthwhile. I don’t give a crap about “his family, man” because he still makes his living harassing ordinary people just trying to go about their lives (going to work, trying to get to school, etc).
I support the troops on the rare occasion when they’re doing something that actually involves defending the country (or retaliating) or defending our freedoms. I hate to break it to you, but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with any of those things. It’s a war of aggression because the US thinks that it’s OK to murder and rape into submission anyone who dares to live differently. How about we do some role reversal – how would you feel if another country (say China) decided that our leaders were “bad men” and they attacked the US and invaded to “liberate” us from our “evil capitalist rulers”? You’d be pissed and say that they had no right to invade and try to force us to have the government that they feel is best – yet you think it’s OK for the US to do that very thing to other countries.
Except I’d never be in his shoes. I prefer to do a job that involves providing a benefit to society and helping improve peoples lives – not harassing them for trying to get to work while making excuses about “not our job” or “not enough people” to stop / catch actual criminals (such as murderers and rapists).
If you’ve ever been harassed by a LEO there’s obviously a reason for it.
You’ve never been to Iraq or Afghanistan have you? I assumed that much. The only time I’ve ever met someone in Iraq who didn’t support the US (talking Iraqi civilians here) is when we took SAF. I’m sure you know what you’re talking about though, sitting at a desk caressing an M4gery that you’ll never use.
Yes, there is a reason for it – LEO’s are cowards who need to bully people in order to feel tough. That’s why you always see absurd numbers of police for a single violent suspect, because they’re too scared to do jack without overwhelming numbers on their side.
So? Even if the people in Iraq really did want the US to kill Saddam, it’s still none of our goddamn business. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with our freedom or national defense and was purely about trying to convert a country to our cause of US supremacy. But thanks for admitting that your BS about the military “defending our freedoms” is just that – a load of crap you use to con ignorant people into believing that you need to be going around the world terrorizing everyone.
I also like how you ignored how you’d feel if another country did to the US what the US does to other countries on a regular basis, thus proving that you know it’s a bunch of hypocritical crap.
Holy sh*t…. I checked TTAG this a.m. to see if anyone replied to my comment about not wanting to die to Abba. I found about 50 virulently anti-police posts. I’m stunned. I had no idea there were so many people with that attutide reading TTAG. “Occupy” forums maybe. Even before I became an EMT the only interaction I’ve had with cops was a couple of very politely and professionally handled traffic stops where I wa, indeed, sppeding. Since becoming an EMT 10 years ago I’ve realized that the police are willing, at a moment’s notice, to help protect decent people from the many irresponsible “scumbags” (medical term) worthlessly floating around.
There are the four rules for handling firearms, and there is the one golden rule for commenting on internet forums.
Rule no. 1- “Please don’t feed the trolls.”
A lot of bitter, irrational cop-haters around here. I hope this doesn’t turn into one of those sites.
my experience with cops here in vermont matches yours, i’ve dealt with police officers while being armed myself, and been treated professionaly, with courtesy and respect. (and no, i’m not and never have been a police officer) i’ve also carried a gun as an armoured truck guard in massachusetts and connecticut and found the same respect and courtesy there. i can’t help wondering what’s with all the “cop bashers” jumping up here, and what would they do if there were no cops. i mind my own business and keep the peace, would they?