TexasCHLforum.com

carlson1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A retired DPS Lt. said it best. "Respect for law enforcement and community relations are rapidly declining because of what cadets are being taught in academies all over the country. Cadets are being taught that they are the pointy end of the spear. They are taught to be not just COPSs, but judge, jury and executioner. That came from a high ranking officer with over 30 years experience. He too longs for the days of community policing.

Chas.

That DPS Lt. Is spot on. As long as these "paramilitary" antics take place there will be a lot of innocence people and police alike killed for no good reason.

Teaching cops to act like an occupying army is the height of stupidity.

In most of the country, the ratio of LEO's to citizens is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 per thousand. Thinking about that for a moment should make it obvious that LEO's can only function effectively with the support of the population. If that population turns against them due to misuse of authority, their jobs become much more unpleasant and dangerous, and no military equipment or amount of force that they could bring to bear could overcome that.

There are already police "no go" areas in cities like Newark and Chicago where the general population is actively hostile to the police. In these areas, routine patrols are impossible because they would be attacked. Call response is by necessity accomplished with small unit tactics with quick in and quick out.

Abusive policing tactics can produce this situation wherever they are applied. The first sign is noncooperation with investigations - "I didn't see nuthin'." The next is verbal harassment of officers by bystanders during citizen contacts and arrests. Beyond that point it gets violent, and really ugly for both sides.

Those who teach young officers to act like thugs are actively detrimental to the molding of new officers. They should be called to account by the police chiefs and sheriffs whose cadets are going through their schools. If they fail to do so, they will have to live with the consequences of that "training" which will not be positive for their careers.

TomsTXCHL wrote:dailymail.co.uk huh. This is the kind of thing that gives America a "wild west" reputation with the Yurpeans.

No mystery there.

They operate on the "if it bleeds, it leads" protocol just like our media do, and they know that anything that reinforces the "wild west" image of America will increase viewers and sell papers in their market.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

Sometimes common sense is all that's needed. They did a great job of managing the "variables" in this case didn't they? All for some dope. I guess a certain amount of collateral damage can be expected in war? The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time and should do a better job of deciding with whom to hang. Got what he had coming, huh?

The cops got a big adrenaline rush and a huge stash of drugs of the streets or did they?

A little of the type of sense that used to be common is a superior replacement for another "study" that will likely only conclude in harmony with the bias the researcher's grant funding started out with.

What may have been missed here is that entering the home while the suspect is away from it doesn't necessitate arresting him in some other public place where resistance may expose others to danger. The evidence for the arrest would come from the evidence seized with the warrant, which has to be served before an arrest is justified. However, it does remove virtually all risk that the subject will engage in a shootout with officers at the site where the warrant is executed.

In fact, it pretty much negates the need for a no knock warrant based on officer safety. We executed warrants like this routinely with just a couple of detectives and regular patrol officers unless we had a known armed and violent suspect. No MRAPS, no helmets, no M16's or MP5's - just good judgment and a little (now un)common sense.