User Panel
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And self fund a home sale, move, and school transfer plus their spouse losing their Job? I'm pretty confident people leave jobs they don't like and find work elsewhere. It's really not hard to grasp. It's damn difficult in LE. The hiring process is often measured in years. Why do they have to stay in LE? Because most of us believe what we do really matters. We make a choice to stand up for people who can't protect themselves, and we make a real and positive difference in our communities. Not always perfectly, sometimes have to deal with stupid laws passed by stupid legislators, but we are often the ONLY chance for minimizing the damage to the public that can occur. Mad about some laws? Change them. Don't blame cops for your own laziness and stupidity. |
|
Quoted: Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: SEATTLE — In an open revolt, more than 100 Seattle police officers suing to block new use-of-force polices assert that high-level city, police and union officials privately agree with their contention that the court-ordered changes put them and the public in danger. In a statement Thursday, guild President Ron Smith said, "As I have stated before, there are severe flaws with the current Use of Force policy, but litigation is not the prudent route to achieve any changes to the policy. The review period for this policy is currently open, and input is being solicited from the rank and file on how to potentially improve the policy." www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7511844-Seattle-cops-say-city-playing-politics-with-their-lives/ Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... Short sighted people usually think this way. |
|
Quoted:
If need be yes. Happens all the time in the good ol' USA. Don't like your job? Get a different one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SEATTLE — In an open revolt, more than 100 Seattle police officers suing to block new use-of-force polices assert that high-level city, police and union officials privately agree with their contention that the court-ordered changes put them and the public in danger. But the officers who filed the suit aren't naming those high-level officials, saying only that the officials told them they won't seek to alter the policies because of the "politics" of the situation and the "perceived inability" to fight federally mandated reforms, the officers allege in newly filed court papers. "This means that the City is now knowingly and willingly playing politics with Plaintiffs' lives and the lives of the law-abiding citizens of Seattle," the officers wrote in a 34-page amended complaint filed late Wednesday with U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman. The complaint, which added new allegations to a May 28 lawsuit to block the policies, ratcheted up the court fight with its fresh allegations of cowering officials bowing to federal demands and vague claims that the policies have led to more assaults on officers. Sprinkled with more pointed language than the initial suit, the new complaint accuses the federal monitor tracking the reforms, Merrick Bobb, of carrying out a "zealous agenda" to restrict the ability of officers to use force and make reasonable, split-second decisions. Bobb is one of a number of defendants in the suit, which also names city and federal officials. The complaint also lambastes U.S. District Judge James Robart, who is overseeing the reforms and found the policies to be constitutional, for approving the changes in a "cursory, one-and-one-half-page order." The filing, which came a week after attorneys for the city and Bobb moved to dismiss the lawsuit, poses a new challenge for Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole, a strong supporter of the reforms who, shortly before being sworn into the job June 23, met with four of the officers to convey her concern that their suit had created the appearance that they were resisting reform and hindering efforts to restore community trust. It also opened an old wound, alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) improperly wrung the policies out of the city based on a discredited and "fundamentally flawed finding" that Seattle officers had engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. The policies, which went into effect Jan. 1, grew out of a July 2012 consent decree between the city and the Justice Department, which required the police department to adopt sweeping reforms to curtail excessive force and biased policing. The officers challenging the policies, primarily patrol officers in the 1,236-member department, brought their suit without an attorney or the support of their union, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild. In a statement Thursday, guild President Ron Smith said, "As I have stated before, there are severe flaws with the current Use of Force policy, but litigation is not the prudent route to achieve any changes to the policy. The review period for this policy is currently open, and input is being solicited from the rank and file on how to potentially improve the policy." www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7511844-Seattle-cops-say-city-playing-politics-with-their-lives/ Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... You mean like throw away their retirement and go start from scratch somewhere else? If need be yes. Happens all the time in the good ol' USA. Don't like your job? Get a different one. Don't like gun laws that get passed? Just up and move. Same logic. |
|
Quoted:
Thank you, I am pretty tough. Once you pay your dues, you can hang out with me. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love this thread!!! Since JBTs have no duty to protect citizens, why should we give a flying fuck what restrictions are put on them? Of course the city needs to weigh the cost of reduced revenue vs. the lower cost of labor. Little babies don't like it, they can work somewhere else like millions of folks in the private sector. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You're such a tough guy. Do you have a newsletter? I want to be rugged, manly and un-needing of the world too. Thank you, I am pretty tough. Once you pay your dues, you can hang out with me. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Where do I send the nickel, chairborne? |
|
Quoted:
If your job gives you discretion to use force, or deadly force, you ought to not be surprised when others rein in your authorization to use it if that authority has been abused. What constitutes 'abuse' isn't up to the people who are being reined in. It's up to the people with the power to confer the authority. The people who can confer that authority are the populace, not the police. For this sort of reaction to occur the police either really shit the bed on their own or utterly failed to wash the sheets after numerous wet farts. Don't give a shit about any pensions. Yeah, they are part of the comp. package but it's like a real company. If they fuck up enough to be shut down, the pension goes out the window too. It's a good perk, but it isn't gold plated and that's how life is. View Quote So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? |
|
Quoted:
So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If your job gives you discretion to use force, or deadly force, you ought to not be surprised when others rein in your authorization to use it if that authority has been abused. What constitutes 'abuse' isn't up to the people who are being reined in. It's up to the people with the power to confer the authority. The people who can confer that authority are the populace, not the police. For this sort of reaction to occur the police either really shit the bed on their own or utterly failed to wash the sheets after numerous wet farts. Don't give a shit about any pensions. Yeah, they are part of the comp. package but it's like a real company. If they fuck up enough to be shut down, the pension goes out the window too. It's a good perk, but it isn't gold plated and that's how life is. So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? That is not how a 401k works, have you ever worked in the private sector? |
|
Quoted: From what I saw in another article, the UOF policy was made so long, complicated and even contradictory that its basically impossible to understand. Which may be by design so that any use of force incident can be used against the officer. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: TL;DR... what are the policies in question? From what I saw in another article, the UOF policy was made so long, complicated and even contradictory that its basically impossible to understand. Which may be by design so that any use of force incident can be used against the officer. So pretty much like all of the laws they enforce? |
|
Quoted:
Love the part where they suggest officers hide or run away rather than use any force. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to the new policy http://www.seattle.gov/police/compliance/finished_policy/Use_of_Force_Policy_11_27_2013.pdf Love the part where they suggest officers hide or run away rather than use any force. Other examples include:
Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer (hide) Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position(run away) I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away |
|
Quoted:
I think once the Feds are investigating and you have "community groups" dogging you it's time to leave or cover your ass. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I cannot find one specific example in the whole story. That's ridiculous. I will say though that if the feds are running your dept by consent decree then you are fucked. Meh, ROD until pension time. You don't have to worry about getting in trouble when you don't do anything. ROD. |
|
Quoted:
Because most of us believe what we do really matters. We make a choice to stand up for people who can't protect themselves, and we make a real and positive difference in our communities. Not always perfectly, sometimes have to deal with stupid laws passed by stupid legislators, but we are often the ONLY chance for minimizing the damage to the public that can occur. Mad about some laws? Change them. Don't blame cops for your own laziness and stupidity. View Quote There was once a woodcarver that probably disagrees. |
|
It requires them, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics” to reduce the need for force.
View Quote Good. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. It's working for the cops on NYPD. Stops are down over 80% citywide and up to 99% in some of the worst areas, arrests are down, and civilian complaints are down. Of course shootings are up but that's the residents' problem. Quoted:
Seattle PD is a bunch of whiners. Soon to be followed by the whining of Seattle residents asking "Why don't the cops do anything?" just like they're doing in NYC now. |
|
Quoted:
You must have missed the part in red ... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Officers Will Only Carry and Use Weapons That Have Been Approved by the Department and That the Officer has Been Properly Trained and Certified to Use, Except Under Exigent Circumstances
Intentional or reckless violations of policy or training standards will result in discipline. Negligent violations of policy or training standards may result in discipline. The use of Improvised Weapons will be subject to the same standards as Approved Weapons set forth in 8.100, Using Force. Translation. If when suddenly attacked you are not allowed to use the flashlight in your hand as an impact weapon. You are instead expected to holster the flashlight and draw a department issued impact weapon for which you have department training. You must have missed the part in red ... Define "exigent circumstances", I'm sure the police officer will have a different take than the: defense attorney, Internal affairs division and politicians |
|
|
Quoted:
Define "exigent circumstances", I'm sure the police officer will have a different take than the: defense attorney, Internal affairs division and politicians View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Officers Will Only Carry and Use Weapons That Have Been Approved by the Department and That the Officer has Been Properly Trained and Certified to Use, Except Under Exigent Circumstances
Intentional or reckless violations of policy or training standards will result in discipline. Negligent violations of policy or training standards may result in discipline. The use of Improvised Weapons will be subject to the same standards as Approved Weapons set forth in 8.100, Using Force. Translation. If when suddenly attacked you are not allowed to use the flashlight in your hand as an impact weapon. You are instead expected to holster the flashlight and draw a department issued impact weapon for which you have department training. You must have missed the part in red ... Define "exigent circumstances", I'm sure the police officer will have a different take than the: defense attorney, Internal affairs division and politicians you're probably right, and yet, the fact that the defense attorney might disagree hasn't yet stopped the police from engaging in numerous warrantless searches and seizures because of "exigent circumstances" ... |
|
Probably so, in the end I don't care what seattle does, I have no plans to ever visit and in 5 years I'll be done and will not care about any police dept's policies
|
|
Quoted:
So along the same lines..... don't like laws in a city? Don't like 2nd Amendment restrictions? Don't bitch, just quit your job and move. View Quote Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? |
|
Quoted:
You mean like throw away their retirement and go start from scratch somewhere else? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SEATTLE — In an open revolt, more than 100 Seattle police officers suing to block new use-of-force polices assert that high-level city, police and union officials privately agree with their contention that the court-ordered changes put them and the public in danger. But the officers who filed the suit aren't naming those high-level officials, saying only that the officials told them they won't seek to alter the policies because of the "politics" of the situation and the "perceived inability" to fight federally mandated reforms, the officers allege in newly filed court papers. "This means that the City is now knowingly and willingly playing politics with Plaintiffs' lives and the lives of the law-abiding citizens of Seattle," the officers wrote in a 34-page amended complaint filed late Wednesday with U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman. The complaint, which added new allegations to a May 28 lawsuit to block the policies, ratcheted up the court fight with its fresh allegations of cowering officials bowing to federal demands and vague claims that the policies have led to more assaults on officers. Sprinkled with more pointed language than the initial suit, the new complaint accuses the federal monitor tracking the reforms, Merrick Bobb, of carrying out a "zealous agenda" to restrict the ability of officers to use force and make reasonable, split-second decisions. Bobb is one of a number of defendants in the suit, which also names city and federal officials. The complaint also lambastes U.S. District Judge James Robart, who is overseeing the reforms and found the policies to be constitutional, for approving the changes in a "cursory, one-and-one-half-page order." The filing, which came a week after attorneys for the city and Bobb moved to dismiss the lawsuit, poses a new challenge for Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole, a strong supporter of the reforms who, shortly before being sworn into the job June 23, met with four of the officers to convey her concern that their suit had created the appearance that they were resisting reform and hindering efforts to restore community trust. It also opened an old wound, alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) improperly wrung the policies out of the city based on a discredited and "fundamentally flawed finding" that Seattle officers had engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. The policies, which went into effect Jan. 1, grew out of a July 2012 consent decree between the city and the Justice Department, which required the police department to adopt sweeping reforms to curtail excessive force and biased policing. The officers challenging the policies, primarily patrol officers in the 1,236-member department, brought their suit without an attorney or the support of their union, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild. In a statement Thursday, guild President Ron Smith said, "As I have stated before, there are severe flaws with the current Use of Force policy, but litigation is not the prudent route to achieve any changes to the policy. The review period for this policy is currently open, and input is being solicited from the rank and file on how to potentially improve the policy." www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7511844-Seattle-cops-say-city-playing-politics-with-their-lives/ Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... You mean like throw away their retirement and go start from scratch somewhere else? It happens every day in the private sector. While I'm not judging this specific situation, to think that an employer can't make decisions the employees don't like because they would lose their pensions if they leave is part of the problem with government work and unions in general. If you're truly worried about your life, then it's not a hard decision. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to the new policy http://www.seattle.gov/police/compliance/finished_policy/Use_of_Force_Policy_11_27_2013.pdf Love the part where they suggest officers hide or run away rather than use any force. Other examples include:
Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer (hide) Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position(run away) I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away Nice work ethic, I think we are seeing the reason some can't get another job. |
|
Say I had a job that I had been doing for a long time & knew how to do correctly and accurately ? Then one day a bunch of people show up and tell me what I have done for the last 22 years is completely wrong and then order me to do it entirely differently? I know the way they want it done will not accomplish anything, but I would like to retire so fuck it I do it their way and nothing gets accomplished, I don't get in trouble or arrested, and I get my paycheck. Why are you mad? This is what the people want..enjoy
|
|
Quoted:
Short sighted people usually think this way. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SEATTLE — In an open revolt, more than 100 Seattle police officers suing to block new use-of-force polices assert that high-level city, police and union officials privately agree with their contention that the court-ordered changes put them and the public in danger. In a statement Thursday, guild President Ron Smith said, "As I have stated before, there are severe flaws with the current Use of Force policy, but litigation is not the prudent route to achieve any changes to the policy. The review period for this policy is currently open, and input is being solicited from the rank and file on how to potentially improve the policy." www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7511844-Seattle-cops-say-city-playing-politics-with-their-lives/ Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... Short sighted people usually think this way. As do those based in reality. |
|
Since this is GD can the Seattle police simply stop arresting black people (for all but the most serious of reasons) and just let the voters figure it out? Sort of like what is happening in NYC with De Blasio?.
Also as violent crime increases (it will if you stop patrolling) then there will be more calls for more police and more aggressive police |
|
Quoted:
That is not how a 401k works, have you ever worked in the private sector? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If your job gives you discretion to use force, or deadly force, you ought to not be surprised when others rein in your authorization to use it if that authority has been abused. What constitutes 'abuse' isn't up to the people who are being reined in. It's up to the people with the power to confer the authority. The people who can confer that authority are the populace, not the police. For this sort of reaction to occur the police either really shit the bed on their own or utterly failed to wash the sheets after numerous wet farts. Don't give a shit about any pensions. Yeah, they are part of the comp. package but it's like a real company. If they fuck up enough to be shut down, the pension goes out the window too. It's a good perk, but it isn't gold plated and that's how life is. So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? That is not how a 401k works, have you ever worked in the private sector? Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. |
|
Quoted:
Since this is GD can the Seattle police simply stop arresting black people (for all but the most serious of reasons) and just let the voters figure it out? Sort of like what is happening in NYC with De Blasio?. Also as violent crime increases (it will if you stop patrolling) then there will be more calls for more police and more aggressive police. View Quote That hasn't been the case in NYC. Some violent crimes have gone up equalling more calls for police and the cops still aren't doing squat. |
|
Quoted:
Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So along the same lines..... don't like laws in a city? Don't like 2nd Amendment restrictions? Don't bitch, just quit your job and move. Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? Self defense is a right. Just because someone is a cop in a specific city they should not have to surrender the right to self defense. |
|
Second hand smoke from all the MJ in the air????
Aloha, Mark |
|
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away Nice work ethic, I think we are seeing the reason some can't get another job. Protect your family and ability to provide for them first. Worry about shithead FSA types like SeanC after that. My agency, we just found out the hard way that if you are forced to retire medically from an on-the-job injury, you lose your medical insurance -no retiree medical benefits. How do you expect anyone to be willing to put themselves (and their families future) at risk? No equivalent to VA benefits for cops in most states (and NONE in right-to-work states). |
|
Quoted:
Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If your job gives you discretion to use force, or deadly force, you ought to not be surprised when others rein in your authorization to use it if that authority has been abused. What constitutes 'abuse' isn't up to the people who are being reined in. It's up to the people with the power to confer the authority. The people who can confer that authority are the populace, not the police. For this sort of reaction to occur the police either really shit the bed on their own or utterly failed to wash the sheets after numerous wet farts. Don't give a shit about any pensions. Yeah, they are part of the comp. package but it's like a real company. If they fuck up enough to be shut down, the pension goes out the window too. It's a good perk, but it isn't gold plated and that's how life is. So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? That is not how a 401k works, have you ever worked in the private sector? Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. No one said it was easy or fun, that's just life. If a person cant diversify their skills to the point they are only fit for one job then they better suck it up when policy changes or switch companies within the skill set they have pigeon holed themselves into. This isn't a dig or a ha ha moment its just the harsh reality of a shitty economy. Happens in the private sector every day. |
|
Officer Wilson would have already been fired under Seattle's UOF policy.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Self defense is a right. Just because someone is a cop in a specific city they should not have to surrender the right to self defense. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So along the same lines..... don't like laws in a city? Don't like 2nd Amendment restrictions? Don't bitch, just quit your job and move. Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? Self defense is a right. Just because someone is a cop in a specific city they should not have to surrender the right to self defense. I'm not seeing where anyone here is saying any person can't defend themselves. More straw man I guess. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away Nice work ethic, I think we are seeing the reason some can't get another job. Protect your family and ability to provide for them first. Worry about shithead FSA types like SeanC after that. My agency, we just found out the hard way that if you are forced to retire medically from an on-the-job injury, you lose your medical insurance -no retiree medical benefits. How do you expect anyone to be willing to put themselves (and their families future) at risk? No equivalent to VA benefits for cops in most states (and NONE in right-to-work states). View Quote Says the guy that thinks he has a right to a job, right to tell his employer how to do things and now thinks he deserves VA type benefits. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not seeing where anyone here is saying any person can't defend themselves. More straw man I guess. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So along the same lines..... don't like laws in a city? Don't like 2nd Amendment restrictions? Don't bitch, just quit your job and move. Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? Self defense is a right. Just because someone is a cop in a specific city they should not have to surrender the right to self defense. I'm not seeing where anyone here is saying any person can't defend themselves. More straw man I guess. It says the cops should run, hide or beg them to stop if possible before using force (defending themselves). Basically inserted a duty to retreat that only applies to cops in one department. When the rest of the nation is moving towards stand your ground they are telling the cops they cant. |
|
Quoted:
It says the cops should run, hide or beg them to stop if possible before using force (defending themselves). Basically inserted a duty to retreat that only applies to cops in one department. When the rest of the nation is moving towards stand your ground they are telling the cops they cant. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So along the same lines..... don't like laws in a city? Don't like 2nd Amendment restrictions? Don't bitch, just quit your job and move. Not even close to the same thing, but nice straw man. The 2nd Amendment is easy to find in the Constitution, could you please point out the amendment in the Constitution that says your employer can't make rules you don't like? Self defense is a right. Just because someone is a cop in a specific city they should not have to surrender the right to self defense. I'm not seeing where anyone here is saying any person can't defend themselves. More straw man I guess. It says the cops should run, hide or beg them to stop if possible before using force (defending themselves). Basically inserted a duty to retreat that only applies to cops in one department. When the rest of the nation is moving towards stand your ground they are telling the cops they cant. No, it does not say anywhere in it an officer has to run, or hide. Those words were added by you. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't quit, I just wouldn't do shit. The public will get the police force they want by decree. They will they cry when police do nothing because they don't want to be: fired or arrested for doing anything other than hiding or running away Nice work ethic, I think we are seeing the reason some can't get another job. Protect your family and ability to provide for them first. Worry about shithead FSA types like SeanC after that. My agency, we just found out the hard way that if you are forced to retire medically from an on-the-job injury, you lose your medical insurance -no retiree medical benefits. How do you expect anyone to be willing to put themselves (and their families future) at risk? No equivalent to VA benefits for cops in most states (and NONE in right-to-work states). View Quote Was that decision made by the agency or the insurance company? |
|
Quoted:
No, it does not say anywhere in it an officer has to run, or hide. Those words were added by you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
No, it does not say anywhere in it an officer has to run, or hide. Those words were added by you. Other examples include:
Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it does not say anywhere in it an officer has to run, or hide. Those words were added by you. Other examples include:
Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position Thanks, so like I said it doesn't say run and hide. Those were words you added. |
|
Quoted: You don't have to worry about getting in trouble when you don't do anything. ROD. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I cannot find one specific example in the whole story. That's ridiculous. I will say though that if the feds are running your dept by consent decree then you are fucked. Meh, ROD until pension time. You don't have to worry about getting in trouble when you don't do anything. ROD. We're creating an entire generation of police officers who have this mindset. Tired of overly active officers? Wait until the pendulum swings the other way. Now, I realize everyone on this website is an uber bad ass with no need for cops...but we'll see. |
|
Listen people choose to become cops nobody forces them. A few of the cops I know who have been doing it a while stay for the benefits. I do not believe police or others working for the Govt should receive any more benefits then those in the private sector. Companies are successful because they hire the best and brightest, and put in place policies and procedures to protect the company. Your not on board, you don't like it- go ahead and leave, go work somewhere else. law enforcement is the opposite, they can piss and moan and decide not to work yet they don't get fired. They dint have to worry about productivity or the bottom line, they don't care if the cities bankrupt- as long as their checks clear. Not the cops fault it's the system. Until the city operates like a business the inmates run the asylum.
|
|
Quoted:
I do not believe police or others working for the Govt should receive any more benefits then those in the private sector. Companies are successful because they hire the best and brightest, and put in place policies and procedures to protect the company. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I do not believe police or others working for the Govt should receive any more benefits then those in the private sector. Companies are successful because they hire the best and brightest, and put in place policies and procedures to protect the company. So you're going to attract the "best and the brightest" to be cops by cutting their benefits? Good luck. NYPD tried it and their pool of qualified applicants dried up overnight. They then hired people who were DQd from the hiring process in the past because no one else wanted the job. That approach seems to be working wonders with Memphis PD also. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1660651_102_Officers_Have_Left_Memphis_PD_In_2014 In the past month and a half 19 officers turned in their letters of resignation.
Williams blames the exodus on cuts to benefits and a chance for better opportunities around the country. As officers leave the department is preparing to start its first recruit class in over a year. But Memphis Police won't be able to hire enough officers to replace the ones they've lost over the last two years. |
|
Quoted:
They probably should have thought of that before they fucked up so bad the Feds had to get involved. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... They can. But some battles are bigger than yourself. Quiting doesnt solve the problem for the remaining Seattle cops and the decent people of Seattle. They probably should have thought of that before they fucked up so bad the Feds had to get involved. |
|
Quoted:
It's damn difficult in LE. The hiring process is often measured in years. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And self fund a home sale, move, and school transfer plus their spouse losing their Job? I'm pretty confident people leave jobs they don't like and find work elsewhere. It's really not hard to grasp. It's damn difficult in LE. The hiring process is often measured in years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And self fund a home sale, move, and school transfer plus their spouse losing their Job? I'm pretty confident people leave jobs they don't like and find work elsewhere. It's really not hard to grasp. It's damn difficult in LE. The hiring process is often measured in years. Takes years to get hired on good departments here after taking the exam. Even NYPD usually takes 2 years and it's the least desirable department in the area. |
|
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. It will not subject them to enhanced risk of suit or prosecution, because both those possibilities are governed by established law unaffected by any department's policies.
ETA: The cops should just stop using force for anything except immediate defense against violence and see how the community likes the result. |
|
Quoted: Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If your job gives you discretion to use force, or deadly force, you ought to not be surprised when others rein in your authorization to use it if that authority has been abused. What constitutes 'abuse' isn't up to the people who are being reined in. It's up to the people with the power to confer the authority. The people who can confer that authority are the populace, not the police. For this sort of reaction to occur the police either really shit the bed on their own or utterly failed to wash the sheets after numerous wet farts. Don't give a shit about any pensions. Yeah, they are part of the comp. package but it's like a real company. If they fuck up enough to be shut down, the pension goes out the window too. It's a good perk, but it isn't gold plated and that's how life is. So you're fine with giving up your 401K if you don't make 30 years with your company? That is not how a 401k works, have you ever worked in the private sector? Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. The horror! |
|
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. View Quote When you violate policy and get sued the cost can be much more than a job related penalty. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.