Question pertaining the to the greater perceived threat

I agree that there is a fine line and that it can be a difficult thing to manage the decision making process unless its obviously blatant.

For example the Baltimore cop that planted evidence on tape with two witnesses right there, IMO that was as blatant as it gets and there are several like that where its makes me question the integrity of a department, and LEO in general.

At the end of the day I still feel like cops are overwhelmingly good people doing an extremely difficult job in a current media environment that is running a harsh zero tolerance policy for any wrongdoing. This policy can display a very inaccurate representation of what really goes on every day out there in the streets.

I guess its easy for me to have a feel good attitude about law enforcement since I live an extremely boring life that doesn't expose me to any significant personal danger or possibility of jail time. Its amazing how uncomplicated life can be if you just play the straight and narrow and not look for shortcuts.

 

With such being the case, one must ask the obvious question. If law enforcement officers are subject to such poor consideration on all fronts, why do they simply resign in large numbers, and leave society to fend for itself, forced to deal with all of the ugly incidents they themselves are expected to address, so that those who are ungrateful can experience the real world for themselves?

From the sound of it, there are far better areas of employment for them, where they will be paid more, faced with less unreasonable pressures, experience better working conditions, and less likely to face the risk of assault and murder. If they are going to be blamed for everything, even when their actions are morally and legally correct, why even bother trying, and why not simply give society what it supposedly wants?

 

A sense of duty; a desire to keep the barbarians at the gate.

 

Exactly.
I gave it lots of thought.
I made a difference.

 

I do....sarcasm much?

 

I wonder what the statistics on your comment are?

 

That also makes no sense. I wonder who many of these posts in weird English are written in Russian and then run through a second-rate, Russian-to-English translation algorithm. Apparently it is not necessary to actually be able to write in English in order to get a job as a Russian troll. One would expect a troll to be able to write a comprehensible post.

 

Neither.

Neither. I believe that most people in law enforcement are good people doing a tough job. And, I believe that law-abiding gun owners can and do coexist with law enforcement and their fellow citizens with very few problems. These are general statements, and there are exceptions.

The third school of thought that you didn't mention is that both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess firearms. That is the way it is now, and I'll bet most people would agree with that school of thought.

 

It was not mentioned for the simple purpose that it is not a narrative being pushed by those that align with liberal ideology and politics. Conflicting narratives are being presented simultaneously, and the conflict must be called out and addressed.

 

OK, I see. I know liberals who own guns, so I don't know if you're going to really get a uniform answer to your question. Good luck.

 

you are right but so is Xen-man. its the gun banners who are the quickest to bash cops even though they only want cops (and criminals) being armed

 

Not all liberals are gun haters. In fact some of the biggest pro gun types I have met are radical lefties such as well known radical attorney Ron Kuby of NYC. however, almost ever gun banning group and leader is on the left side of the political spectrum. as that influential NR article noted-gun control is really a cultural attack on "white, conservative, middle aged Christian males by groups who see them as the enemy.

 

I don't know. I'm sure the number of cops who kill innocent people is a relatively small number of the total number of cops, but that hides the magnitude of the problem. The point is that when these killings occur, the entire system protects the shooter from justice and they are almost always successful in subverting justice. While one cop pulls the trigger, 100's more rally behind that one cop, demonstrating that its a system wide mentality that cops should be above the law.

 

I just don't buy that mentality, The entire system does not protect shooters and there are lots of dirty cops in prison. Beyond that what you are insinuating is that LEOs have herd mentality and aren't able to think for themselves or even display integrity. I believe I am getting a whiff of prejudice or at least prior bad experiences. However, I do think you have good heart so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

OK, we will disagree.

But we have another test case from last July 15:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ally-shot-justine-damond-search-warrant-says/

The two had responded to 911 calls from Damond at around 11:30 p.m. reporting a possible sexual assault in the alley behind the woman’s home in a nice Minneapolis neighborhood. Damond, according to the 911 transcripts, called when she heard a woman either having sex or being raped, The Washington Post previously reported.

“I think she just yelled out ‘help,’ but it’s difficult,” Damond said, according to a police transcript of the call.

Damond called again eight minutes later when authorities still hadn’t arrived, worried they had gone to the wrong address.

It’s unclear what exactly happened next, but Harrity told BCA investigators that Damond approached his side of the vehicle right after the loud noise. Noor, sitting in the passenger seat, fired his gun across his partner’s body and through the driver’s side window, striking Damond in the abdomen.​

Was that justified? A cop hears a loud noise and shoots the person standing next to the car, no attempt to determine if she is a threat or if there even is a threat. Is a loud noise (its not even described as a "gunshot") enough justification for a cop to kill someone?

It will be interesting to see what happens with this one. Damond is an Australian, and this has received international attention.

 

I'm not saying there are not bad incidences, bad cops, or bad co-workers what I am saying is the entire system does not protect bad shooters which is your statement and that there are plenty of bad cops in jail or prison so if they are successful in subverting justice this wouldn't be true. I submit that there are bad players in every job genre and they all have the ability to hurt or injure people. I still am getting a whiff of personal bias.

 

Lets see what happens to the Damond case. The cop clearly made a gross mistake, at a minimum he is unfit for the job and should be fired and never again hired in law enforcement. Lets see if he loses his job. And his mistake cost an innocent woman her life, and caused grief to her family. At a minimum its negligent homicide or manslaughter, lets see what happens in the legal department.

True there are bad apples in every occupation, but cops have extreme power, the power to ruin a persons life and even maim or kill. With extreme power comes extreme responsibility and oversight. When cops make a mistake or abuse their power, its not the same as a cashier taking a few bucks out of the register.

Yes, I have a bias but its not unfounded. If you can convince me I am wrong then I will change my opinion, but the nature of the forum limits your ability to make a solid argument so its unlikely you will be successful.