COVID-19 Coronavirus Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been some interviews with a Danish cop in the US, that use to feature in some local COP programs, ( upper Darby outside Philly )
While he was not a cop in Denmark, then he do say that the schooling of cops are not really geared for things like that.
In Denmark the education to become a cop are a 2 year and 4 month deal, with school and actual learning on the job alongside a experienced cop.
I have no idea what the education time frame are in the US, or if its even a education but just a basic job, where you of course need to master some skills.
My only knowledge of US cop education are the police academy movies, and those are probably far from the real deal.
 
SawMaster said:
a sudden movement which is not dangerous to anyone but could very easily be mistaken as threatening by a Cop who reacts to that poorly.
Click to expand...
A sudden movement shouldn't be dangerous! How are they going to respond? Shoot you even though you are unarmed?

Don't need to worry about that here, the UK police don't have guns, and since everyone knows that, the police don't need to worry either because no one is going to shoot an unarmed policeman, you would never leave jail for that.
 
SawMaster said:
I would extend that to being an imminent danger to the public too, but only when lesser force applications haven't been effective or there was clearly no reasonable alternative to using deadly force immediately. We expect the Cops to protect us, so we must allow them the necessary means to do that so long as they do not abuse the leeway we give them.

Phil
Click to expand...

Last evening, Kevin Murphy, the well known former Montgomery, Alabama Chief of Police explained the responsibility of law enforcement very clearly during an interview on the PBS News Hour.

"It's not a police officer's job to punish. We're there to enforce the law and to take people into custody."

"But I think you have seen in some instances, and certainly back in the latter — early and the latter parts of the last century, that, you know, law enforcement felt like it was their role to punish. And, you know, it's our responsibility to apprehend and bring these people before the courts. You know, there is no such thing as street justice. You have to abide by the law when you're wearing the uniform and set the example.
When you don't do that, you have lost all credibility with the public that you serve."
 
SawMaster said:
I would extend that to being an imminent danger to the public too, but only when lesser force applications haven't been effective or there was clearly no reasonable alternative to using deadly force immediately. We expect the Cops to protect us, so we must allow them the necessary means to do that so long as they do not abuse the leeway we give them.

Phil
Click to expand...

Two things I think need changed with American police forces.

1. Police chases should only be allowed if the crime creates imminent danger and a matter of public safety to the general public. Not some dickheads was speeding 10 miles over, refuses to stop, and now warrants endangering lives. There needs to be a standard set of protocols (federal law) governing when and under what circumstances police chases are permitted. To many cops wanting to get their jollies off will chase anything and it has resulted in innocent people getting killed, when the person being chased has committed low level crimes.

2. All Police should be requires to have Body Camera running at all times while in the field. Lack of body camera footage is grounds for dismissal and criminal charges if a report has been filed against the officer and the video isn't present. Malfunctioning camera or "forgetting to turn it on" are not an excuse against reprimand. And criminal charges if proven the officer intentionally altered or disabled camera.
 
When the Danish police got new guns, their old Walther pp was sold back to Walther for 7.7 mill DKkr, and apparently Walther sole those off again, so now they feature on the US market and god know where.
The new cop gun are the H&K USP, on the other hand the armed forces have just gotten the SIG P320 X-carry.

What Danish police did is actually not legal, but of course they are above the law they defend, so to my knowledge no one was reprimanded or anything in regard to that little matter. :cry:
So if your love one are shot with a former Danish service pistol, do recall to say thank you so very much Denmark.
 
Nigel said:
A sudden movement shouldn't be dangerous! How are they going to respond? Shoot you even though you are unarmed?

Don't need to worry about that here, the UK police don't have guns, and since everyone knows that, the police don't need to worry either because no one is going to shoot an unarmed policeman, you would never leave jail for that.
Click to expand...

Sudden movement depends upon the scenario. If someone is fleeing from the police and begins digging in their pockets, police are not mind readers. Peson could be reaching for a weapon or simply pulling up their pants. There have been several scenarios cops have used deadly force when person was running and their pants were falling. However, the police don't know whether this is the case or the guy has a gun.

So it's a situational determination. I mean does the cop WAIT and see if the guy is reaching for a weapon?? Or does the cop assume he has one and take action? This isn't an easy decision because waiting could endanger the police officer's life or that of the public.
 
kamkar1 said:
When the Danish police got new guns, their old Walther pp was sold back to Walther for 7.7 mill DKkr, and apparently Walther sole those off again, so now they feature on the US market and god know where.
The new cop gun are the H&K USP, on the other hand the armed forces have just gotten the SIG P320 X-carry.

What Danish police did is actually not legal, but of course they are above the law they defend, so to my knowledge no one was reprimanded or anything in regard to that little matter. :cry:
So if your love one are shot with a former Danish service pistol, do recall to say thank you so very much Denmark.
Click to expand...

America flooded Mexico with firearms to "trace their usage". Big scandal some years ago if you read the news. - Project Gunrunner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
 
It takes more than documentation and cameras- it takes a solid enforcement of the expectations of integrity and morality which all Cops should have. People should have that too but there cannot be allowance for any Cops lacking in this- zero tolerance does have a proper place and time.

Phil
 
HonestReview said:
So it's a situational determination. I mean does the cop WAIT and see if the guy is reaching for a weapon?? Or does the cop assume he has one and take action? This isn't an easy decision because waiting could endanger the police officer's life or that of the public.
Click to expand...
Remove the guns and that problem goes away.
 
Yes, big trade in guns for drugs or cold cash going on down there on the border.
Mexicans are armed to the teeth, and they are not afraid one bit to use it.

I think it would be the same if Denmark was south of the US border, i think in the other end Canada, they also see a lot of guns coming over the border.
Black market weapons here have traditionally come from the south or south east, and they would probably be even more plentifull if it wasent for the fat they have to cross several borders, though of course now in the EU thats not much of a problem VS the good old days in the 80 and 90ties where my knowledge base hail from.
 
SawMaster said:
It takes more than documentation and cameras- it takes a solid enforcement of the expectations of integrity and morality which all Cops should have. People should have that too but there cannot be allowance for any Cops lacking in this- zero tolerance does have a proper place and time.

Phil
Click to expand...

Documentation is the only one change will happen. Because if you remove accountability, the Police have no motive to abide by the law. Mandating that ALL dash camera video be required pubic access, and lack of recording could be a crime, will definitely instill accountability.

Coupled with better training of officers on when/how to use force, along increased vetting of hirees (require education, minimum age, etc) will result in a better police force.
 
kamkar1 said:
Yes, big trade in guns for drugs or cold cash going on down there on the border.
Mexicans are armed to the teeth, and they are not afraid one bit to use it.
Click to expand...

America had some dumb idea that flooding guns into Mexico would some how allow them to trace their origins and dismantle the cartels. Fool-hearty at best. All it did was bring more guns into the cartel's hands.

kamkar1 said:
I think it would be the same if Denmark was south of the US border, i think in the other end Canada, they also see a lot of guns coming over the border.
Black market weapons here have traditionally come from the south or south east, and they would probably be even more plentifull if it wasent for the fat they have to cross several borders, though of course now in the EU thats not much of a problem VS the good old days in the 80 and 90ties where my knowledge base hail from.
Click to expand...

America produces enough guns without the need for a black market.
 
NRA would not be happy if you try to take the guns of Americans, and to be honest i think they maybe also need them.
On the other hand a country like Denmark, that have put all its trust in politicians and given them the monopoly on violence, well we might actually screw over even faster than the US society if things went sour for both of us.

Overpowering a unarmed population are so much easier than overpowering a armed population, of course in both cases "they" will win, but the Americans will make it a very bitter sweet win for them.
Here it would just be a cakewalk.
 
HonestReview said:
You cannot. General Populous has guns in America. Police do need the ability to defend themselves. No turning back the clock on guns in America.
Click to expand...
Other countries have managed it, really not difficult. The USA problem is that it gives up before it starts to even consider it!

Of course you need some exceptions, maybe for bear protection in Alaska, but it is not necessary for anyone, including cops to have concealed weapons in the vast majority of situations.
 
Nigel said:
Other countries have managed it, really not difficult. The USA problem is that it gives up before it starts to even consider it!

Of course you need some exceptions, maybe for bear protection in Alaska, but it is not necessary for anyone, including cops to have concealed weapons in the vast majority of situations.
Click to expand...

How are you going to enforce "gun revocation" when both the U.S. Constitution permits gun ownership and the Supreme Court has ruled gun ownership is a mandated right. Police have no power to "take away guns" and no revocation law would pass muster in the courts. Wishful thinking here.
 
Yes Aussies that also at one time had plenty of guns to go around did it, but it was not a overnight thing.
Here in the annual amnesty for weapons you also see guns turned in, most often left over of old hard core people that died, that now fall in the hands of weak Danes that absolutely do not need weapons, cuz why should we when we have our glorious leaders to take care of us.
17681797-427137706jpg.jpg

20170629-123942-L_web-610x475.jpg

vaaben-frit-lejde-fyns-politi


I am very sorry but that level of trust i have never had in anyone, i wholeheartedly prefer to have the option to defend myself.

As the police say " any weapon taken off the street or out of peoples home, make Denmark more safe " well i am not 100% behind that, and the news also almost daily disproof that here.
 
HonestReview said:
How are you going to enforce "gun revocation" when both the U.S. Constitution permits gun ownership and the Supreme Court has ruled gun ownership is a mandated right. Police have no power to "take away guns" and no revocation law would pass muster in the courts. Wishful thinking here.
Click to expand...
You already have limits, for example fully automatic machine guns, artillery guns, etc., you just need to extend the limits to include concealable weapons such as pistols. Here we can carry guns in public, such as shotguns and single shot rifles used for hunting and which are impossible to conceal and can't be used for mass shootings.
 
Nigel said:
You already have limits, for example fully automatic machine guns, artillery guns, etc., you just need to extend the limits to include concealable weapons such as pistols. Here we can carry guns in public, such as shotguns and single shot rifles used for hunting and which are impossible to conceal and can't be used for mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Automatic weapons ARE LEGAL. Gun must have been manufactured prior to 1986 They'll set you back around $10,000 and you do have to register it, but they are perfectly legal. Hughes Amendment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Grenade launchers are again legal - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-grenade-launchers-are-legal-again-in-US.html

Any other assumptions? Hell, Jay Leno owns a tank!
 
I might be lifting my arm to deliver a right hook punch which could render them unconscious- the movement is exactly the same until shoulder level is reached. If they're going to react it will be underway by then, and they're also taught to complete any defensive actions they begin.

Here in SC, you must take and pass a course in policing given by the State-run "Criminal Justice Academy" before you can be a Cop in any part of this State. Most States now have similar schools and similar requirements. This was begun here many years back as a means to ensure that the things we're seeing now did not occur. Back then we had no standards and plenty of "Bubbas" wearing a badge who unnecessarily beat the crap out of whoever they wanted to with impunity. Two things went wrong- first is that the Government devised and runs this, and we all know that anything the Government runs here is going to be run badly or worse. Second is that they neither allowed or permitted civilian input into this- they didn't want any of us having any real input on the ways they were going to teach Cops to act. So in effect all they show and all they teach is a totally one-sided view from a Cop's shoes with no other considerations being given :eek:

I don't want unarmed Cops by default such as is the norm in GB. That just cannot be made to work here for numerous reasons. And (directed at Nigel) the UK does have and used armed Police who have killed innocent people- it's just that they are kind of like our SWAT teams who are only called in when necessary, but neither do I want Cops to be taking their gun out of it's holster until it really must happen. I don't want Cops to unnecessarily risk their lives, but neither do I want them to risk the innocent lives of others by preparing to shoot when that's not necessary.

My Cop friends from the old days had it right- their job is to be peacekeepers, and that cannot be accomplished by beginning with potentially violent methods and means. To them, having to pull their gun meant that they had failed to keep the peace but everyone including them knew and understood that sometimes that simply had to happen. That way of thinking is the exact opposite of what is being taught to Cops now and that is exactly what is wrong here. The instructors are guilty of a most heinous crime against humanity, but so is an individual Cop who can and should see this error in thinking and refuse to participate in and perpetuate it even if that means they will lose their job. There can never be any excuse for anyone knowingly committing any wrongful act; we are all responsible for our actions and if we excuse anyone from that standard then that standard should not be held for anyone else either.

Not much point in beating this horse much further. Either things will be made right peacefully and soon or this will be the end of America as we know it. Only one thing is sure: 2020 is going to be known in American history as being more powerful and important than 1776 was whichever way this goes.

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top