When mojo84 posted the photos of the Adam 12 crew (Ofcrs. Malloy and Reed) and the ninja-clad SWAT officers, he was correctly noting the overall change in philosophy, attitude and tactics used by police now compared to years past. It was a clear statement of the evolution of community policing with friendly officers to black uniformed, mask-wearing SWAT COPS. You are clearly an intelligent person so I'm quite certain this message was not lost to you.A-R wrote:Please show me where I claimed a cop's job is more dangerous today? It was a meme, and a narrowly pointed meme at that. It merely intended to say that cops gear up to meet the threat they anticipate - nothing more. In fact, the LA bank robbery (among other events like Columbine) was the catalyst for many departments t put patrol rifles in patrol vehicles and change the tactics and equipment of both front line and SWAT type officers. It's not a false excuse, it's a reasoned and justified response to a new threat level.Charles L. Cotton wrote:My response to overly broad? You put a photo of the LA bank robbery, and then accuse me of an overly broad response.A-R wrote:Wow. I'm honestly surprised at how broad your response to a simple meme. Frankly, having known you for a while via this forum - I expect more.Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's the false excuse some LEO's use. The fact is society is no more violent than when I was a LEO or when I was a kid. Criminals are no more dangerous now than 100 years ago. What is more common is police corruption and abuse of power.
Chas.Well, when you claim that a COP's job is more dangerous now than in prior years, you can expect those who disagree with you to counter that claim. The justification that is universally given for the ongoing militarization of civilian police forces is the claim that society is more violent now and a COP's job is more dangerous. I'm not using the "more dangerous" claims as a copout, I'm calling it a bogus argument. As noted in the link Mojo84 provided, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty is much lower than in prior years. It's almost 37% lower than when I left the force. That's not playing with statistics, that's a documented fact.A-R wrote:I really have no desire to debate tit-for-tat with you to narrow down the focus. But suffice to say, mere statistics and anecdotes don't scratch the surface of this debate. And "more dangerous" is just as convenient a cop out - how do you support that other than statistics (which certainly show a shrinking trend in overall violent crime)?
I agree that if I were faced with a criminal wearing body armor and armed with a rifle, I'd like to have a rifle also. That's not the point of the photo that is an excellent example of the decline in American law enforcement. Officers Malloy and Reed (Adam 12 characters in the photo) could have rifles in their units and they could use them when warranted. I have no problem with that. My problem, as exhibited in the photo, comes with the change in overall attitude and tactics used by law enforcement officers today. Virtually every "old COP" I know agrees with my position and they have been around long enough to see the change.A-R wrote:. . .The point is, if faced with the lower right photo wouldn't you or any logical person want as much protection and counter-force capability as possible? Certainly this capability is, has been, and can be abused. And we could (but if rather not) debate those examples. Like any amount of authority and power, police "militarization" should be constantly checked and reviewed. But again I refer you back to the simple put-yourself-in-their-shoes thought process.
Chas.
YOU brought the "more dangerous" idea into the discussion. Not me. I know full well that fewer cops are killed today. Do you at least admit that part of the reason WHY may be attributable to advances in police tactics and equipment?
Yes, SWAT officers are a special group, but the evolution is not limited to any specific unit; it's an overall change from community policing to an intimidating presence. When the Houston Police Dept. was changing from their traditional light blue shirt/dark blue pant uniform to all black, many people, including more senior officers, didn't like t he change. The President of one of the two Houston Police Department unions was interviewed on TV and was asked what he thought of the change. He loved it. When the reporter noted that some people find the all black uniform intimidating, his unbelievable response was "I'd rather they be intimidated than for us to look like a wuss." That statement spoke volumes about the transition from community policing to a menacing presence.
You then posted the same two photos along with two more and included the statement, "Answer . . . when this became this." Of your two photos, one was a cartoonish character in prison strips wearing a mask and funny look on his face and holding a bag of money. The other photo was of one of the LA bank robbers. Are you really going to now claim that the message you were sending was not that criminals are more dangerous, thus an officer's job more dangerous? If that wasn't your message, then what is the message?
The clear fact is society is not more dangerous now than in past years and the proof lies not only in a greatly reduced number of officers killed in the line of duty, but also an overall lowering of violent crime. There is no justification for the evolution of community policing into something else. Your use of a highly unusual and rare event (LA bank robbery) as justification for sweeping changes in policing, including but not limited to arming them with military weapons and vehicles, is disturbing. It would make as much sense for me to argue that all peace officers should be fired and stripped of the TCOLE licenses because one HPD officer was convicted of raping motorists.
To answer your question, no, I do not admit that the lower death rate for LEO's is the result of tactics and equipment. There's absolutely no evidence to support that claim. If overall violent crime had increased at the same time LEO deaths decreased, then I would agree that tactics and equipment could well have played a part. However, violent crime has been declining for years. I'll reiterate that I'm not against training and I'm not opposed to officers having rifles available. As I said in the prior post, Ofcrs. Malloy and Reed could have rifles in their units and still use a friendly, nonconfrontational community policing approach. When that doesn't work, when the rifle is necessary, then get the rifle and do what's necessary. I tell every client that when dealing with juries, perception controls over reality. I don't have to prove anything, I just have to make the jurors believe what I'm saying. A black-clad, combat boot wearing officer is intimidating to a large segment of society. The officer could be the nicest guy in the world, but that reality is overshadowed by the perception.
I am not the least bit anti-LEO or anti-military. However, I don't want COPs in Afghanistan or troops Texas; they need to be in their proper theater of operation. The mission, tactics, equipment and operational philosophy are miles apart.
Chas.
, I see very little use for full auto weapons for law enforcement, including anti-terrorist action.
