Private University LEOs

[A-R]

[ Image ]

Answer:

[ Image ]

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.

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. 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)?

The point is not comparing time periods, stats , or anecdotes. 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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Cops used to roll with 38 revolvers and a shotgun if you were lucky back in the day. With the gangbangers packing AKs that will punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper you can see why we the police are matching force. I believe most would think different if they had to stand fast outside at the door knowing the bad guy is in the bedroom armed and waiting for you to cross the threshold. You wanna go in old school with just a wheel gun and a koga baton be my guest.

Why are you resorting to such an absurd comparison? Now show me how many LEO's have been killed with AK's. Show me the LEO's that have been killed when shot through the door of their patrol unit. I've never said LEO's shouldn't have patrol rifles, but there is no place for full auto or burst fire weapons on a school campus. There's also no reason for you to have military vehicles either.

If something happened at the campus I would be going in by myself as I am the only officer there. Sure I would call local LE but I'm not waiting if people are dieing. Im throwing on my heavy armor, grabbing my go bag and my AR then going to work. You want to pick apart my military style gear or operator tactics later in court or armchair quarterback it to death be my guest, my mission is to stop the killing period.

First of all, you shouldn't even be on campus. Schools should not have private police forces, not public schools or private schools. If there is a need for police presence, then it should be provided by the local police department, or the county sheriff's department, if the school is in the unincorporated portion of the county. Having a school police force is far more expensive than adding additional officers to an existing force. It also guarantees the school officers will never be as experienced as city police or county deputies. The chance of you having to deal with an armed suspect, be in a shootout, deal with a barricaded suspect, handle a domestic violence call, or any number of other situations a city police officer or county deputy face on a regular or semi-regular basis is almost nonexistent. No campus COP will ever have the opportunity to gain the experience, thus the expertise, possessed by city police officers and county deputies. This isn't an indictment of you or your dedication; it's a fact of life. When I was a Friendswood Police Officer, we were a small town (still are). I had far more experience handling various types of crimes and criminals than any campus COP in the State. That said, Houston Police Officers handle far more different types of calls in one week than I would see in a year. Putting aside the unjustified expense of a separate police department for schools, why in the world would we as a society want inexperienced officers handling an active shooter on campus, when far more experienced officers are available?

As for you being the only person to enter a school with an active shooter, the fix for that isn't arming you with military equipment; it's arming students and faculty. You're going to be too late to the party. Even if the shooter is still alive, too many unarmed people are going to die while you dawn your gear and get into the building. You can have to best intentions in the world, but you can't help when you aren't there.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[ Image ]

Answer:

[ Image ]

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.

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.

My response to overly broad? You put a photo of the LA bank robbery, and then accuse me of an overly broad response.

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)?

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.

. . .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.

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.

Chas.

[nightmare69]

Why are you resorting to such an absurd comparison? Now show me how many LEO's have been killed with AK's. Show me the LEO's that have been killed when shot through the door of their patrol unit. I've never said LEO's shouldn't have patrol rifles, but there is no place for full auto or burst fire weapons on a school campus. There's also no reason for you to have military vehicles either.

I can show you our city evidence property room full of weapons (mostly handguns) and quite a few semi auto rifles pulled off gangbangers here in town. Some of these well known street gangs are well armed, we the police are trying to stay one step ahead and train with our gear and weapons as much as possible. We will never have military vehicles or weapons. Like I said, everything I have or will have any law abiding citizen can own.

First of all, you shouldn't even be on campus. Schools should not have private police forces, not public schools or private schools. If there is a need for police presence, then it should be provided by the local police department, or the county sheriff's department, if the school is in the unincorporated portion of the county. Having a school police force is far more expensive than adding additional officers to an existing force. It also guarantees the school officers will never be as experienced as city police or county deputies. The chance of you having to deal with an armed suspect, be in a shootout, deal with a barricaded suspect, handle a domestic violence call, or any number of other situations a city police officer or county deputy face on a regular or semi-regular basis is almost nonexistent. No campus COP will ever have the opportunity to gain the experience, thus the expertise, possessed by city police officers and county deputies. This isn't an indictment of you or your dedication; it's a fact of life. When I was a Friendswood Police Officer, we were a small town (still are). I had far more experience handling various types of crimes and criminals than any campus COP in the State. That said, Houston Police Officers handle far more different types of calls in one week than I would see in a year. Putting aside the unjustified expense of a separate police department for schools, why in the world would we as a society want inexperienced officers handling an active shooter on campus, when far more experienced officers are available?

I know you disagree with the uni having its own PD. I will have to disagree that county or city is more experienced or better trained then us. My dept has the time and money to put us through much more training then most city and all of the county officers will ever attend. This was a reason I choose this dept because of their willingness to send me to training. I've been to Friendswood, beautiful and very expensive town with a median income of over 100K. I don't see yall having too much trouble vs the ghetto side of town I work. Houston PD officers I have the up most respect for all the crime they have to deal with.

As for you being the only person to enter a school with an active shooter, the fix for that isn't arming you with military equipment; it's arming students and faculty. You're going to be too late to the party. Even if the shooter is still alive, too many unarmed people are going to die while you dawn your gear and get into the building. You can have to best intentions in the world, but you can't help when you aren't there.

Chas.

This is the reason I support campus carry and would further push my dept in letting our student guards carry that had CHLs. Those that don't but want to get their licence have the PD pay all or a big portion of the class. I hope it passes next year I really do.

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.

Could a reason be that more Departments are training, arming, and giving their officers the best protection gear possible?

[talltex]

Cops used to roll with 38 revolvers and a shotgun if you were lucky back in the day. With the gangbangers packing AKs that will punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper you can see why we the police are matching force. I believe most would think different if they had to stand fast outside at the door knowing the bad guy is in the bedroom armed and waiting for you to cross the threshold. You wanna go in old school with just a wheel gun and a koga baton be my guest.

The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

[nightmare69]

The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

We have a junk police cruiser out at the range that would beg to differ, Ive seen it. If that 7.62 does not hit the engine block it will clear straight through the car bumper to bumper. The wolf ammo the russians sell by the ton with the steel core will penetrate.

[carlson1]

It takes awhile for rookies to calm down. I remember my early days of all the arsenal I carried. When the Miami FBI shoot out happened I doubled my arsenal. After a year a two we backed down to having enough to deal with thugs.

The young ones will learn.

[nightmare69]

It takes awhile for rookies to calm down. I remember my early days of all the arsenal I carried. When the Miami FBI shoot out happened I doubled my arsenal. After a year a two we backed down to having enough to deal with thugs.

The young ones will learn.

Yeah I am gung-ho but Ive always been this way with firearms, I love to shoot. I have a 29in waist so my belt is full. We are getting tasers next month (hopefully) and I will have to lose my O.C. spray in order to carry it. Carrying 2 non lethals is sufficient IMO.

[SewTexas]

so well put Mr Cotton, thank you.

Cops used to roll with 38 revolvers and a shotgun if you were lucky back in the day. With the gangbangers packing AKs that will punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper you can see why we the police are matching force. I believe most would think different if they had to stand fast outside at the door knowing the bad guy is in the bedroom armed and waiting for you to cross the threshold. You wanna go in old school with just a wheel gun and a koga baton be my guest.

Why are you resorting to such an absurd comparison? Now show me how many LEO's have been killed with AK's. Show me the LEO's that have been killed when shot through the door of their patrol unit. I've never said LEO's shouldn't have patrol rifles, but there is no place for full auto or burst fire weapons on a school campus. There's also no reason for you to have military vehicles either.

If something happened at the campus I would be going in by myself as I am the only officer there. Sure I would call local LE but I'm not waiting if people are dieing. Im throwing on my heavy armor, grabbing my go bag and my AR then going to work. You want to pick apart my military style gear or operator tactics later in court or armchair quarterback it to death be my guest, my mission is to stop the killing period.

First of all, you shouldn't even be on campus. Schools should not have private police forces, not public schools or private schools. If there is a need for police presence, then it should be provided by the local police department, or the county sheriff's department, if the school is in the unincorporated portion of the county. Having a school police force is far more expensive than adding additional officers to an existing force. It also guarantees the school officers will never be as experienced as city police or county deputies. The chance of you having to deal with an armed suspect, be in a shootout, deal with a barricaded suspect, handle a domestic violence call, or any number of other situations a city police officer or county deputy face on a regular or semi-regular basis is almost nonexistent. No campus COP will ever have the opportunity to gain the experience, thus the expertise, possessed by city police officers and county deputies. This isn't an indictment of you or your dedication; it's a fact of life. When I was a Friendswood Police Officer, we were a small town (still are). I had far more experience handling various types of crimes and criminals than any campus COP in the State. That said, Houston Police Officers handle far more different types of calls in one week than I would see in a year. Putting aside the unjustified expense of a separate police department for schools, why in the world would we as a society want inexperienced officers handling an active shooter on campus, when far more experienced officers are available?

As for you being the only person to enter a school with an active shooter, the fix for that isn't arming you with military equipment; it's arming students and faculty. You're going to be too late to the party. Even if the shooter is still alive, too many unarmed people are going to die while you dawn your gear and get into the building. You can have to best intentions in the world, but you can't help when you aren't there.

Chas.

[A-R]

[ Image ]

Answer:

[ Image ]

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.

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.

My response to overly broad? You put a photo of the LA bank robbery, and then accuse me of an overly broad response.

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)?

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.

. . .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.

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.

Chas.

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.

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?

Anyway, I really did not intend to get into a tit-for-tat. It's obvious we fundamentally disagree based on different perspectives.

[talltex]

The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

We have a junk police cruiser out at the range that would beg to differ, Ive seen it. If that 7.62 does not hit the engine block it will clear straight through the car bumper to bumper. The wolf ammo the russians sell by the ton with the steel core will penetrate.

Seriously?? If it doesn't hit the engine block? Well...yeah, it's possible , but that's a mighty big "IF". Takes a lucky shot to get through the engine compartment, that's why they teach you in training to use the engine block as cover, and I'll assume that all of your patrol vehicles do have engines in them...not stripped junkers. Ignoring all the "what ifs", the main point is: a bullet from a gangbanger's AK47 has no greater likelihood of "punching through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" than any other centerfire rifle. It's not a valid excuse to need more tactical equipment or weapons.

[VMI77]

Thanks Chas for injecting fact and reason into a discussion that seems to be filled with with emotion and anecdotes. Some of the discussion is a product of older versus younger. Those of us who have been around awhile have experienced a different country than that which has existed for those now in their 20s and 30s.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[ Image ]

Answer:

[ Image ]

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.

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.

My response to overly broad? You put a photo of the LA bank robbery, and then accuse me of an overly broad response.

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)?

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.

. . .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.

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.

Chas.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[talltex]

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.

WELL STATED !! I'll take the perception comment a step further...perception not only controls reality...it IS REALITY to the person on the receiving end. However a particular set of circumstances and/or actions is perceived by someone, THAT IS the REALITY to them. The brain constantly processes the data and visual stimulation it receives and makes a judgment based on that individual's perception of that information. That judgment is almost immediate and generally lasting. That is why it's so important to be cognizant of what "image" an individual or organization is projecting...the old cliché about the importance of a "good first impression" has been proven in many scientific studies. Once the initial perception is made, it's much more difficult to change it.
That last paragraph is the best summation of my own feelings and opinions I've ever read...I wish I had said it so eloquently. Thank You!

[mojo84]

On a separate note, I wouldn't mind troops in Texas if they were here to defend our southern borders from the invasion that is occurring.