Crowdsourcing Police

UPDATE: Apparently the entire post I wrote got gobbled up somewhere in cyberspace. I’ll make a second attempt.

***

Oakland, California residents attempt crowdsourcing to hire people to protect them.

Some haved decried it as vigilantism. People are missing the irony. What do you think police officers are? Where do you think police receive their authority? Some strange woman in a lake passing out badges?

ALL authority derives from the inherent natural right to live and defend one’s self. Essentially, the issue comes about that humans are both passionate and fallable. So we have a tendency to make mistakes. And if you make such a mistake while meting out justic, it rather sucks.

So we ceded, for the benefit of our communal living states, that right to a collective authority. At first it was essentially sheriffs/constables/justices of the peace/elders/etc. These would judiciously decide a matter, and make a determination of guilt and a fair reparation.

As society grew, this authority needed to be further delegated and expanded. Hence more constables, and then eventually our modernized police force hired by a community at large to render service. In which regards, the actions of Oakland residents are in fact, no different than in the past.

http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/oakland-crowdfunding-private-cops/

Granted, we might see some objections from the unionized Oakland police against the non-union upstarts. Similar to a union painter complaining that the non-union painter got the job (because he was charging less and doing better work).

What do the rank and file law enforcement think about gun control?

FACT: 95% of law enforcement do not believe a magazine ban will reduce violent crime.

FACT: 85% of law enforcement feel White house proposed legislation would have either no or a negative affect on their safety.

FACT: 90% of law enforcement feel that an assault weapon ban would have no positive affect in reducing crime.

FACT: 80% of law enforcement do not believe a ban on private transfers would reduce crime.

FACT: 60% of law enforcement feel increased severity of punishment for gun trafficking/straw purchasers would reduce crime.  30% did not, and the remainder were unsure.

FACT: 70% of law enforcement oppose a national database tracking legal gun sales.

FACT: 90% of law enforcement feel that use of a firearm during a crime should result in stiff mandatory sentence with no plea bargaining.  THIS IS WHAT POLICE VIEW THE CAUSE OF THE VIOLENT GUN PROBLEM – they keep busting criminals only to see them released onto the streets two weeks later.

FACT: 70% of law enforcement felt favorably toward public sheriff’s/cheifs who declared they would not enforce gun laws they viewed as unconstitutional.

FACT: 90% of law enforcement support concealed carry by civilians. (Actually 91.3%, only 4% oppose.)

FACT: 84% of law enforcement usually carry off duty. Another 12% sometimes carry.
The following survey polled 14,000 law enforcement officers.  You get a very different picture from the rank and file officer than you do from the “politically appointed” police chiefs of big cities.  As for accuracy, I cannot attest. But the oft quoted study that politicians use to claim 40% of are sold without background checks only used 250 respondants ( & the study was actually done before background checks existed).
Survey:
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
H/T to Sebastian
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/08/but-i-thought-law-enforcement-supported-gun-control/

137 – 24 – 23 = 90

Cleveland police engaged in a high speed chase, that ended in officers shooting the two men fleeing.  This wouldn’t sound to crazy, until you read the number cited in the article. 

• 2 Dead
• 30 Police Cruisers involved in chase.
• 13 officers fire
• 137 rounds (90 of which missed their target)

Yes Cleveland, I think it’s time to re-institute training. And while the use of a vehicle may constitute an attack with a deadly weapon. I am not sure it requires 13 officers to fire 137 rounds. And darn it, miss 65% of the shots fired.

Article
T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G

T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G

T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G

Shoot First…..questions come later!

Disturbed by the increasing trend in modern police forcing to immediately resort to force.  Here is a perfect example, police gun down double amputee in a wheel chair.

That’s right, the man (who had a case history of schizophrenia) had apparently pinned an officer with his chair, and possessed an item in his hand.  So he was fatally shot.

The item happened to be the most dangerous of weapons – a pen. For we all know the “Pen is mightier than the Glock”.

—

Yes, the man was acting aggressive.  Yes, there was potential need for force.  But was there need for lethal force?  I am highly doubtful of that.  First, most officers these days are equipped with secondary non-lethal force items (baton, pepper spray, and tazers).  Were any of these put into use? They should have been…

“The officers made verbal commands for the suspect to drop whatever he had in his hand, to stay still and to speak with the officers, but the suspect continued to make threats,”

Second, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that there was no reason they should not have been able to restrain this man without the use of their firearms.  There were at least two offices involved per the article. The man was a double amputee, thus largely immobile. Even if one officer was pinned an attempt to grab the man’s hands should have provided both the determination that he did not have a gun, and the elimination of the man’s mobility through his wheel chair.

How hard would it have been for one officer to grab the chair and turn it on it’s back or both officers to restrain the arms. (Remember, this guy is a double amputee it’s not like he could use his legs to run or kick.)

Frankly, you could take any ol’ Joe, Jane, or 10 year old kid and put a gun in their hand and tell them go into a room and if any resistance or defiance is made – shoot!

That’s NOT WHAT WE PAY OFFICERS TO DO, we pay you to go into a room, handle a matter and shoot only as a last resort.  Shame, shame, shame….

I am sorry, but I am gravely concerned by how trigger happy many police departments have begun.  I feel police are merely armed citizens and should be held responsible to the same level as an armed citizen, just more so.  And if an armed citizen did what these Houston area police officers did they would in no way pass muster of self-defense.  So please, anyone, anyone in uniform, explain to me the justification of law enforcement officers to meet a lesser standard in armed conflict than a mere “armed citizen”.

Frankly, if I was a judge in this matter, I would make every officer in that department sit through the NRA’s pistol training courses:

• FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation
• Basic Pistol Shooting Course
• Advanced Pistol
• Basic Personal Protection In The Home Course
• Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course

That would be the bare minimum to ensure that said officers not exceed their authorized role in society.  To the men in blue, I am sorry if this post is harsh, but it’s got to stop. Seriously, I understand you take risks day in and day out, and are underpaid to do so.  But that doesn’t lessen the responsibility and behavior that are required and expected by society.

 

 

 

NYPD…in need of some “back to basics” training

16 rounds (9 from one officer, 7 from the second), one dead hostile.  9 wounded civilians (three from direct shots).

So to put this in perspective, for every two shots fired, a civilian was injured.  I am left with a couple of thoughts.  Perhaps NYPD need some better training.  And perhaps they should consider dropping the .45ACP for 9mm.

“I thought, ‘Maybe you could have kicked the gun out of his hand and Steve would have only gotten shot once instead of five or six times.’ … I just ran, I didn’t know what else to do.””

Just running was probably the smartest thing an unarmed civilian could have done in that specific scenario.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

FBI agents taught to “bend” the law.

I wager most are not surprised by this revelation. Equally unsurprising –

“That review, now complete, did not result in a single disciplinary action for any instructor. Nor did it mandate the retraining of any FBI agent exposed to what the Bureau concedes was inappropriate material.”

In fact, what is surprising is that the agency itself found any criticisms. I’ve pretty much written off “internal investigations”, as everyone I seem to see results in the same result “concludes no breach of conduct or protocol was made”. I put about as much trust in such internal investigations as I do with a junky locked inside a pharmacy.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/fbi-bend-suspend-law/

BTW, anyone know why the warning for “shaking hands with “Asians””?