NYC re-names street

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Wait...what did you just say? Did you just say "a deadly weapon?" I do believe you did. So something that could be considered a deadly weapon, you might think that could have the potential to kill. So now a deadly weapon was used to assault someone. Officer's life was in immediate danger. By your own ideology, the shooting was justified.

Please note the edit I added while you were posting your snippity remark.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by digamma

If you think the answer lies anywhere other than spot on what QuikSand is saying, then you aren't really reading what he has written. The "shoot first, ask questions later" mantra was projected upon him by RendeR.

I'll try to paraphrase the Quik doctrine, which is probably better termed "common law" or "the law": when an officer of the law reasonably believes that a perpetrator poses a serious threat to the officer or others around. You might also see it phrased as the officer has probable cause to believe the perpetrator poses that serious threat. We then judge the officer's use of force ex-post based on whether his belief of the threat was reasonable under the circumstances.

Pretty different from "shoot first, ask questions later," but also very different from the RendeR doctrine.

I said that I agree with Quiksand in a perfect world with highly trained and educated police officers. But I also would agree with somebody who said that there are a lot of musclehead/bow to my authority type personalities who become police officers (not just the few that other professions have). So while I agree with Quiksand's philosophy, there are all kinds of incidents that occur that involve no probable cause at all but ignorant police officers are still able to hide behind what we are calling "The Quiksand Doctrine". (The NYC situation NOT being one of them)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by digamma

If you think the answer lies anywhere other than spot on what QuikSand is saying, then you aren't really reading what he has written. The "shoot first, ask questions later" mantra was projected upon him by RendeR. [edit: panerd, that probably sounds too snarky being directed at you. It's not intended to be, more just an effort to clear up what has been mangled by another poster.]

I'll try to paraphrase the Quik doctrine, which is probably better termed "common law" or "the law": when an officer of the law reasonably believes that a perpetrator poses a serious threat to the officer or others around. You might also see it phrased as the officer has probable cause to believe the perpetrator poses that serious threat. We then judge the officer's use of force ex-post based on whether his belief of the threat was reasonable under the circumstances.

Pretty different from "shoot first, ask questions later," but also very different from the RendeR doctrine.

Indeed, please don't put that on Ryan or QS, I used the exaggeration to point out where that slippery slope will take us if police are not limited far more than they seem to be today.

The Police must be on a higher level than the criminals they go up against, if they aren't they are no better than paid mercenaries with no moral control over their actions at all.

[RendeR]

And with that my children require my attention, adieu my friends.

[illinifan999]

Render let's look at this exaggerated situation.

Your loved one is home alone. Armed intruders enter your home. They place guards at every entrance. The cops arrive. The guards point their guns at the cops but do not fire. Getting tear gas, etc. will take some time. Tasers, pepper paintballs, or pepper spray will be ineffective. Entering the house through non-lethal means will take a considerable amount of time.

Following your ideology, the officers are forced to sit and stare at the barrels. The intruders know their lives are not in danger as long as they do not fire first. The cops can't fire since it would be illegal. Meanwhile, who knows what is happening to your loved one.

How is that acceptable at all?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by panerd

I said that I agree with Quiksand in a perfect world with highly trained and educated police officers. But I also would agree with somebody who said that there are a lot of musclehead/bow to my authority type personalities who become police officers (not just the few that other professions have). So while I agree with Quiksand's philosophy there are all kinds of incidents that occur that involve no probable cause at all but ignorant police officers are still able to hide behind QS's mantra. (The NYC situation NOT being one of them)

First, note my previous edit, that my post probably came across too strongly as directly targeting you. It wasn't intended to do so.

But, I think the QuikSand doctrine would allow the muscleheads to be appropriately punished. It gives us a standard to judge whether their actions are justified or reasonable and to prosecute them accordingly if we determine them not to be.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again, all I have to point out is England, and much of Europe doesn't have this issue and many of them don't arm their police forces. You live within this society, your mentality is made up from what has already been done. So of course you think this way.

it doesn't make you right, just makes you blind to another point of view.

Um...I am a naturalized citizen living in the USA.. I spent 1/4 of my life living in other countries....so saying I am blind to another point of view is just plain wrong.

In regards to Police forces in Europe the following do NOT arm the police:GB, Ireland, Norway...There are over 40 different countries in Europe. 3 out of over 40 is not "many"..

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

Um...I am a naturalized citizen living in the USA.. I spent 1/4 of my life living in other countries....so saying I am blind to another point of view is just plain wrong.

In regards to Police forces in Europe the following do NOT arm the police:GB, Ireland, Norway...There are over 40 different countries in Europe. 3 out of over 40 is not "many"..

I stand corrected then, I did not know you had ever lived outside the us letal one born outside it. the Majority of your life has been spent here and I feel that is turning your PoV greatly in this.

Many is subjective, but I will agree Many is generally more than 3. How ever many there are, the point I relate to them is the same, their crime rates are far better than ours.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Render let's look at this exaggerated situation.

Your loved one is home alone. Armed intruders enter your home. They place guards at every entrance. The cops arrive. The guards point their guns at the cops but do not fire. Getting tear gas, etc. will take some time. Tasers, pepper paintballs, or pepper spray will be ineffective. Entering the house through non-lethal means will take a considerable amount of time.

Following your ideology, the officers are forced to sit and stare at the barrels. The intruders know their lives are not in danger as long as they do not fire first. The cops can't fire since it would be illegal. Meanwhile, who knows what is happening to your loved one.

How is that acceptable at all?

The very LAST thing I want in that situation is ANYONE firing a gun. I mean ANYONE. I expect the police to wait for PROPER backup to arrive to handle the situation in the manner that will offer the best chance of survival of my loved one(s).

Taking the gunman out in a hail of bullets will all but guarantee my loved ones at least getting injured and at worst getting dead.

So yes, waiting is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do there. This isn't the old west, there are better ways to handle things other than shooting everyone and figuring out who was right wrong and dead later.

Thank you for proving my point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I stand corrected then, I did not know you had ever lived outside the us letal one born outside it. the Majority of your life has been spent here and I feel that is turning your PoV greatly in this.

Many is subjective, but I will agree Many is generally more than 3. How ever many there are, the point I relate to them is the same, their crime rates are far better than ours.

fewer people - better socioeconomic situations - different cultures

it's comparing apples to oranges RendeR.

Not to say the idea might not have any merit, but you can't compare us to Europe (particularly UK & Ireland, or Norway which is just wonderful @ life)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fewer people - better socioeconomic situations - different cultures

it's comparing apples to oranges RendeR.

Not to say the idea might not have any merit, but you can't compare us to Europe (particularly UK & Ireland, or Norway which is just wonderful @ life)

Norway might not be the perfect comparison, but the UK and Ireland are very good comparisons. fewer people isn't relevant, its the people per square mile and the economic level of the majority of those people.

The US has a larger middle class where as the UK and Ireland have larger lower class/poverty level groups. Both of those countries should have violent crime rates almost double ours. If socio-economics is a real key to the problem. Yet they are lower.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Norway might not be the perfect comparison, but the UK and Ireland are very good comparisons. fewer people isn't relevant, its the people per square mile and the economic level of the majority of those people.

The US has a larger middle class where as the UK and Ireland have larger lower class/poverty level groups. Both of those countries should have violent crime rates almost double ours. If socio-economics is a real key to the problem. Yet they are lower.

what about cultural differences?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what about cultural differences?

The cultural difference in question is living in a society where cops have guns (the US) and that don't (UK, Ire) the mentality of the criminals is entirely different. This is my point, everything being equal why is it that our violent crime rate is still so high?

[DaddyTorgo]

i meant cultural differences as far as predisposition towards violent crime by criminals - sorry i wasn't more clear

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The cultural difference in question is living in a society where cops have guns (the US) and that don't (UK, Ire) the mentality of the criminals is entirely different. This is my point, everything being equal why is it that our violent crime rate is still so high?

And my answer would be that it has very little to do with the arming of police and exponentially more to do with the cultural makeup of the criminals.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, England's violent crime rate IS higher than the United States. Firearm-related crime is not as high, but that (as DT pointed out) has more to do with the relatively low level of gun ownership. Ireland's justice minister, for instance, announced not too long ago a complete ban on handguns (with the exception of specific .22 caliber pistols for Olympic competition). Even before the ban was enacted, however, there were something like 1400 pistol licenses in all of Ireland.

[RendeR]

Ahh, honestly I'm not sure, would take some digging. My initial thought would be crime is generally perpetrated by those considered "have nots" or those in the lower economic levels.

the UK has a higher percentage of those, so logic would lead us to them having a higher crime rate. Again thats all speculation on my part in the last 30 seconds or so. I'd be interested in seeing real data on that though.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually, England's violent crime rate IS higher than the United States. Firearm-related crime is not as high, but that (as DT pointed out) has more to do with the relatively low level of gun ownership. Ireland's justice minister, for instance, announced not too long ago a complete ban on handguns (with the exception of specific .22 caliber pistols for Olympic competition). Even before the ban was enacted, however, there were something like 1400 pistol licenses in all of Ireland.

So in relation to the topic at hand this would seem to support my position, less guns involved, less gun crime? No?

[CamEdwards]

Also, the Metropolitan Police Department in London has been considering armed patrols in high crime areas of the city because of an increase in shootings between a couple of the drug gangs.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So in relation to the topic at hand this would seem to support my position, less guns involved, less gun crime? No?

Earlier you were saying less violent crime, not less gun crime. The absence of gun owners, legal or otherwise, will result in fewer crimes committed with firearms. That doesn't translate into less violent crime, however.

[RendeR]

Earlier I wasn't differentiating gun crime from violent crime, they are all violent crime, in this country at least. The differentiation came from others, not me.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Earlier I wasn't differentiating gun crime from violent crime, they are all violent crime, in this country at least. The differentiation came from others, not me.

In that case, the low levels of gun ownership don't seem to have affected the violent crime rate, since the violent crime rate in England is higher than that of the United States.

[RendeR]

Its definitely a topic with some disturbing angles to look at. I'm sure I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this and I'm not seeing anything that is making me rethink my position either.

I still believe the Police need to be reactive, not the instigators of gunfire. I think this country specifically has become far too comfortable with gun violence.

Your Mileage may vary.

[RendeR]

Actually I'm interested in where you got your information Cam. According to Nationmaster.com in the areas of Assaults, rapes, and murders (let me know if there are other categories of violent crimes I should check) the USA is ahead of the UK in every category.

Overall Crimes per capita (not just violent ones) the UK is ahead by 5 crimes per 1000 people.

[RendeR]

Well there we are, thank you Steve.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its definitely a topic with some disturbing angles to look at. I'm sure I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this and I'm not seeing anything that is making me rethink my position either.

I still believe the Police need to be reactive, not the instigators of gunfire. I think this country specifically has become far too comfortable with gun violence.

Your Mileage may vary.

I think our mileage varies because you're not running on all cylinders... at least in this case.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think our mileage varies because you're not running on all cylinders... at least in this case.

So instead of offering up a valid argument you'd rather just..insult me? Nice.

There hasn't been a single thing brought up here that negates my PoV, so whow am *I* the one not running on all cylinders?

Less guns == less death.

Prove me wrong.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Ahh, honestly I'm not sure, would take some digging. My initial thought would be crime is generally perpetrated by those considered "have nots" or those in the lower economic levels.

the UK has a higher percentage of those, so logic would lead us to them having a higher crime rate. Again thats all speculation on my part in the last 30 seconds or so. I'd be interested in seeing real data on that though.

I was also born in the UK and a most of my family still live there and Cam is right, violent crime (particularly assaults) are higher there and blunt objects, knives, steel toe boots, etc are the weapons of choice, since Guns are harder to come by. (Edit: I don't know why the numbers you found don't reflect this, I will have to dig more and rapes and murders are lower)

In terms of socio-economic status while a substantial number of Brits are impoverished and it does contribute to crime, but less than you would think. A larger portion of crime in England is hate motivated. Many small Towns have gangs of young men whose purposein life is to "rage against the machine" and knock the snot out of gangs from rival towns or torment foreigners who have the "nerve" to open shops, or buy homes where they live. The poorer, working/welfare class is just often very violent by nature and the smaller middle class makes that class divide more pronounced.

I know I am way off topic here, but my point is England and US are not as good of a comparison as you would think, since different factors tend to drive violent crimes in both places.

And there are armed Police in England. (roughly 5%) A small number for sure, that act in a capacity similar to that of a swat team in the US.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So instead of offering up a valid argument you'd rather just..insult me? Nice.

There hasn't been a single thing brought up here that negates my PoV, so whow am *I* the one not running on all cylinders?

Less guns == less death.

Prove me wrong.

Lighten up, Francis.

I was using the International Crime Victimization Survey. The last one was done in 2004 (nationmaster.com uses 2002 data from the UN).

According to the ICVS, the robbery rate, assault rate, and overall crime rate (looking at 10 categories of crime) are higher in Ireland, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland than it is in the United States.

Interestingly, 32% of those surveyed in England said they do not feel safe on the street after dark. 19% of those surveyed in the United States felt unsafe on the street after dark.

Also, 88% of those surveyed in the United States feel that the police are doing a good job of controlling crime, compared to 75% of those in England and Wales. In fact, Finland was the only Western European country with a higher result (89%) than the United States.

Finally, from the report:

The
countries with the highest prevalence rates for conventional crime are
Ireland, England & Wales, New Zealand and Iceland. Contrary to common
perception, overall rates of volume crime – such as burglary, robbery
and assault & threats – are not higher in the USA than in most parts of
Western Europe. In fact USA rates are significantly lower than those of,
for example, Ireland and England & Wales.

As for proving you wrong about less guns=less death... all you have to do is look at the FBI's preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2009. The FBI says gun sales are up at least 12% over 2008, but the homicide and manslaughter rate is down 10% this year.

You could also look at Mexico, where the rate of gun ownership is about 1/5that of the United States, but the gun homicide rate is more than twice that of the United States.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lighten up, Francis.

I was using the International Crime Victimization Survey. The last one was done in 2004 (nationmaster.com uses 2002 data from the UN).

According to the ICVS, the robbery rate, assault rate, and overall crime rate (looking at 10 categories of crime) are higher in Ireland, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland than it is in the United States.

Interestingly, 32% of those surveyed in England said they do not feel safe on the street after dark. 19% of those surveyed in the United States felt unsafe on the street after dark.

Also, 88% of those surveyed in the United States feel that the police are doing a good job of controlling crime, compared to 75% of those in England and Wales. In fact, Finland was the only Western European country with a higher result (89%) than the United States.

Finally, from the report:


As for proving you wrong about less guns=less death... all you have to do is look at the FBI's preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2009. The FBI says gun sales are up at least 12% over 2008, but the homicide and manslaughter rate is down 10% this year.

You could also look at Mexico, where the rate of gun ownership is about 1/5that of the United States, but the gun homicide rate is more than twice that of the United States.

Mexico's a bad example to cite though Cam - although I was with you pretty much up until that. You can't cite Mexico as a comparison to anything except for like...fucking Colombia or something. It's a fucking narco-state at the moment.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The very LAST thing I want in that situation is ANYONE firing a gun. I mean ANYONE. I expect the police to wait for PROPER backup to arrive to handle the situation in the manner that will offer the best chance of survival of my loved one(s).

Taking the gunman out in a hail of bullets will all but guarantee my loved ones at least getting injured and at worst getting dead.

So yes, waiting is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do there. This isn't the old west, there are better ways to handle things other than shooting everyone and figuring out who was right wrong and dead later.

Thank you for proving my point.

While the cops were waiting for backup, your loved one was just raped, beaten, and murdered. A situation that would have been COMPLETELY avoidable with the current policies in place.

[Galaxy]

I'm kind in the middle of RendeR and Quik on this.

I wonder if the comparsions of us to Europe are really fair for a number of reasons. We are the world's biggest market for drugs and with all the drug gangs moving drugs through the country. Does Europe compare with us on this level?

Also, we have this thing called the protected right to have arms. Now, if you want to argue how far that goes, that's another situation.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Noop

So police have never killed innocent people and gotten away with it? Cool.

What would you consider innocent?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm kind in the middle of RendeR and Quik on this.

I wonder if the comparsions of us to Europe are really fair for a number of reasons. We are the world's biggest market for drugs and with all the drug gangs moving drugs through the country. Does Europe compare with us on this level?

Also, we have this thing called the protected right to have arms. Now, if you want to argue how far that goes, that's another situation.

My posts earlier can kind of show where I'm at on the issue. We do have guns. That horse is out of the barn. Criminals have guns. That horse is out as well.

The idea of a law stating a cop couldn't fire the gun unless fired upon first is so asinine it isn't even worth a debate. If that rule goes into place, two things will happen overnight:

1) Many, many more cops would be killed.
2) Many, many cops would resign their positions and worse ones would take their place.

Neither of these issues are debatable. A criminal wanting to get away and not go back to jail, WILL pull the trigger on officers. If he knows the officers can't fire until he does, he has a monster advantage.

As for the second, Cops are not military. The average police officer makes 45k a year in Denver, CO. In NY it's 60k a year. Chicago is 48k a year. That's not enough to risk seeing your wife and children at night. Good officers will leave to safer jobs that pay nearly the same.

In the end, my guess is that it would lead to MORE police shootings, not less. Criminals would fire more often thinking they'll have the edge, more police will get shot and the rest of the force will be on guard because of that. I think that rule is not only insane, I think it would actually cause more gunfire, more deaths for officers and criminals alike and the law would be repealed in six months anyway.

Thank God we don't have to worry about it. Nothing this insane will ever pass nationwide. I sleep better at night knowing that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lighten up, Francis.

I was using the International Crime Victimization Survey. The last one was done in 2004 (nationmaster.com uses 2002 data from the UN).

According to the ICVS, the robbery rate, assault rate, and overall crime rate (looking at 10 categories of crime) are higher in Ireland, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland than it is in the United States.

Interestingly, 32% of those surveyed in England said they do not feel safe on the street after dark. 19% of those surveyed in the United States felt unsafe on the street after dark.

Also, 88% of those surveyed in the United States feel that the police are doing a good job of controlling crime, compared to 75% of those in England and Wales. In fact, Finland was the only Western European country with a higher result (89%) than the United States.

Finally, from the report:

As for proving you wrong about less guns=less death... all you have to do is look at the FBI's preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2009. The FBI says gun sales are up at least 12% over 2008, but the homicide and manslaughter rate is down 10% this year.

You could also look at Mexico, where the rate of gun ownership is about 1/5that of the United States, but the gun homicide rate is more than twice that of the United States.

Murder is the most important statistic and the U.S. trumps those other countries. Assaults and robberies are bad, but you're not dead. You are 3 times more likely to be murdered in the United States than the UK, Australia, Italy and many more industrialized nations.

Comparing us to Mexico is silly. Too many differences in government, infrastructure, socioeconomics, and law enforcement.

Interesting stats about people feeling safe. I'd imagine there are a lot of factors in this. Our crime is for the most part segregated. There are parts of our country that resemble war zones and others where you maybe get a murder every century. Our higher rural population probably plays a role in some of our perceptions as well. My perception would be entirely based on where I lived. Put me in the Southside of Chicago and I'd not feel safe. Throw me in rural Wisconsin and I'd feel very safe.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

My posts earlier can kind of show where I'm at on the issue. We do have guns. That horse is out of the barn. Criminals have guns. That horse is out as well.

The idea of a law stating a cop couldn't fire the gun unless fired upon first is so asinine it isn't even worth a debate. If that rule goes into place, two things will happen overnight:

1) Many, many more cops would be killed.
2) Many, many cops would resign their positions and worse ones would take their place.

Neither of these issues are debatable. A criminal wanting to get away and not go back to jail, WILL pull the trigger on officers. If he knows the officers can't fire until he does, he has a monster advantage.

As for the second, Cops are not military. The average police officer makes 45k a year in Denver, CO. In NY it's 60k a year. Chicago is 48k a year. That's not enough to risk seeing your wife and children at night. Good officers will leave to safer jobs that pay nearly the same.

In the end, my guess is that it would lead to MORE police shootings, not less. Criminals would fire more often thinking they'll have the edge, more police will get shot and the rest of the force will be on guard because of that. I think that rule is not only insane, I think it would actually cause more gunfire, more deaths for officers and criminals alike and the law would be repealed in six months anyway.

Thank God we don't have to worry about it. Nothing this insane will ever pass nationwide. I sleep better at night knowing that.

You make good points but I do have to take issue with this notion that being an officer is somehow a horribly dangerous job. Sure their mortality rates are higher than the average worker, but it's not higher than many other professions that get little publicity. Often times those deaths are not the result of a criminal shooting and killing them but the result of an automobile crash.

Fact is that in terms of dying from gunfire, being a police officer is relatively safe. Their mortality rate is 4 times LOWER than the average citizen. Yes, they actually are safer being a police officer. Their mortality rate by gunfire is trumped by roofers, loggers, pilots, truckers, and taxi cab drivers. While there is risk to being an officer, it's predominately in automobile related deaths.

I'm not trying to knock them but I do hate the argument that seems to believe that every cop is walking into a flurry of gunfire on a daily basis. Fact is that our officers are extremely safe due to procedures and training that has advanced over the years. You are more likely to die delivering pizzas than you are from being shot as a police officer.

[RainMaker]

And while I don't go as far as Render, I do believe that it is necessary that a cop sees a gun before he fires. I don't believe they have to wait to be fired on, but they better damn well be sure that the person is holding a gun before they fire off a round.

The street naming is abysmal. Just as abysmal as the cops in the situation.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What would you consider innocent?

Have the police ever killed someone innocent? I don't trust police because I don't want to end up dead with crack sprinkled next to my body.

[panerd]

I am sure I will catch a lot of shit for saying this and get a bunch of Wikipedia articles thrown in my face but gun ownership is what makes this country so free. The government can't be tyrannical if its citizens are armed. I am sure somebody will bring up Hong Kong or England or some other area as a counter example but let me ask you this... Why are the United States, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland so free? Why isn’t China? The constitution and bill of rights mean nothing if the government can impose its will on the people. I am sure Cam or somebody more versed in the 2nd amendment can make a much clearer and succinct argument (or maybe they don't agree, who knows?) but there is a reason why the founding fathers made that the second most important right.

(I know this is way off topic but it looks like that is where this thread is headed anyways)

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Noop

Have the police ever killed someone innocent? I don't trust police because I don't want to end up dead with crack sprinkled next to my body.

Wow. Wow. Wow.

I've never seen ANY profession get as stereotyped as policing. Something that another officer does 1000 miles away can affect everyone's opinion of a cop from a completely different area. Well maybe, lawyers but that's just a known view that they are all scumbag liars.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You make good points but I do have to take issue with this notion that being an officer is somehow a horribly dangerous job. Sure their mortality rates are higher than the average worker, but it's not higher than many other professions that get little publicity. Often times those deaths are not the result of a criminal shooting and killing them but the result of an automobile crash.

Fact is that in terms of dying from gunfire, being a police officer is relatively safe. Their mortality rate is 4 times LOWER than the average citizen. Yes, they actually are safer being a police officer. Their mortality rate by gunfire is trumped by roofers, loggers, pilots, truckers, and taxi cab drivers. While there is risk to being an officer, it's predominately in automobile related deaths.

I'm not trying to knock them but I do hate the argument that seems to believe that every cop is walking into a flurry of gunfire on a daily basis. Fact is that our officers are extremely safe due to procedures and training that has advanced over the years. You are more likely to die delivering pizzas than you are from being shot as a police officer.

I think you missed the point of what I wrote. NOW the job is relatively safe. Yes, higher mortality rates and there is always a chance they can die, but it happens fairly rarely.

Give the criminals the first shot before the cops are allowed to respond? The mortality rates will skyrocket and that's when the job will become too dangerous and officers will leave.


Noop,

There are jack asses in every profession. Doctors, lawyers, car mechanics, name a profession and you'll get scam artists or mean people. The police force is no different. A vast majority of officers do their work well and don't break the law while doing it. They are just hard working stiffs like you and I who deal with some situations that you and I will hopefully never have to deal with. (just imagine walking into a crime scene where a child lay murdered for a second)

A majority of police officers are hard working fathers and mothers. Very few are power hungry corrupt monsters who plant drugs on innocent civilians they just slaughtered. i think around 200 people a year die by police firearms. Only 3-5 of those each year make national headlines for questions in the force used. I know plenty of police officers on a personal level. Of the ten+ I know, none has ever fired their weapon in the line of duty and none of them have any desire to.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lighten up, Francis.

I was using the International Crime Victimization Survey. The last one was done in 2004 (nationmaster.com uses 2002 data from the UN).

According to the ICVS, the robbery rate, assault rate, and overall crime rate (looking at 10 categories of crime) are higher in Ireland, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland than it is in the United States.

Interestingly, 32% of those surveyed in England said they do not feel safe on the street after dark. 19% of those surveyed in the United States felt unsafe on the street after dark.

Also, 88% of those surveyed in the United States feel that the police are doing a good job of controlling crime, compared to 75% of those in England and Wales. In fact, Finland was the only Western European country with a higher result (89%) than the United States.

Finally, from the report:


As for proving you wrong about less guns=less death... all you have to do is look at the FBI's preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2009. The FBI says gun sales are up at least 12% over 2008, but the homicide and manslaughter rate is down 10% this year.

You could also look at Mexico, where the rate of gun ownership is about 1/5that of the United States, but the gun homicide rate is more than twice that of the United States.

So you're going to propose that a survey, a POLL, is more valid than the actual statistics taken from records of each country. Sorry Cam, thats a boatload of hooey. That poll is opinion, its not the facts and is pretty worthless in this discussion.

And your stats on gun ownership relates only to REGISTERED TRACKABLE guns. I'd make a pretty solid leap of Faith that there are far more in both the US and Mexico. And as was stated before, using Mexico really isn't helping your case when they're in the middle of a drug cartel war.

I applaud the fact that gun related deaths is declining and I hope that over time those numbers change my opinion.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am sure I will catch a lot of shit for saying this and get a bunch of Wikipedia articles thrown in my face but gun ownership is what makes this country so free. The government can't be tyrannical if its citizens are armed. I am sure somebody will bring up Hong Kong or England or some other area as a counter example but let me ask you this... Why are the United States, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland so free? Why isn’t China? The constitution and bill of rights mean nothing if the government can impose its will on the people. I am sure Cam or somebody more versed in the 2nd amendment can make a much clearer and succinct argument (or maybe they don't agree, who knows?) but there is a reason why the founding fathers made that the second most important right.

(I know this is way off topic but it looks like that is where this thread is headed anyways)

You're absolutely right on this, however the right to own a gun does not require that you have the right to own ANY gun.

Hunting Rifles, Fine, Shotguns, Fine. Thats about it. The average citizen needs nothing beyond those types of weapons for any reason.

Handguns, assault weapons and anything that could ever be made into an automatic weapon should be allowed on the streets.

But thats just my opinion. The NRA Flag waving masses will of course burn me at the stake now

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So you're going to propose that a survey, a POLL, is more valid than the actual statistics taken from records of each country. Sorry Cam, thats a boatload of hooey. That poll is opinion, its not the facts and is pretty worthless in this discussion.

And your stats on gun ownership relates only to REGISTERED TRACKABLE guns. I'd make a pretty solid leap of Faith that there are far more in both the US and Mexico. And as was stated before, using Mexico really isn't helping your case when they're in the middle of a drug cartel war.

I applaud the fact that gun related deaths is declining and I hope that over time those numbers change my opinion.

LOL. Seriously? The British government uses a crime victimization survey, as does the United States government. The United Nations got involved with the survey in 1992, and the project was started by criminologists who specifically used a survey because it allows for a standardization of crime reporting that's just not available by using crime statistics reported from various countries. The ICVS is the gold standard for international comparison of crime in various countries. It's only "pretty worthless" in this discussion because you're looking for an excuse not to accept my point.

The same thing goes for my example of Mexico. You asked me to point out a country where less guns does not lead to less death. I did so. Now you want to move the goalpost?

It's easy to remain unconvinced when your mind is closed to the possibility of new and contradictory information.

With that, I'm out.

[DaddyTorgo]

Cam wins on the survey. RendeR wins on the fact that Mexico is a worthless comparison.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

LOL. Seriously? The British government uses a crime victimization survey, as does the United States government. The United Nations got involved with the survey in 1992, and the project was started by criminologists who specifically used a survey because it allows for a standardization of crime reporting that's just not available by using crime statistics reported from various countries. The ICVS is the gold standard for international comparison of crime in various countries. It's only "pretty worthless" in this discussion because you're looking for an excuse not to accept my point.

The same thing goes for my example of Mexico. You asked me to point out a country where less guns does not lead to less death. I did so. Now you want to move the goalpost?

It's easy to remain unconvinced when your mind is closed to the possibility of new and contradictory information.

With that, I'm out.

Mexico does not have Less guns Cam, if you truly believe that yer really naive. Just because you can only track 1/5 the guns doesn't mean the other 200% aren't there. Please don't be that guy.

To be honest I'm not familiar with that "survey" but something used by the government to track something with as large a negative image on society as Crime doesn't leave me with any warm fuzzies as to its relevence. The fact that it uses public opinion really does invalidate it in a discussion of ACTUAL CRIME NUMBERS.

We're not talking about how citizens feel here, we're talking about actual crimes committed and accounted for, let alone those not caught and prosecuted.

It may well be a great tool for helping governments plan things out and adjust for changes in crime within regions, but thats not what this discussion is about so please stop trying to change the subject.

*sigh* sadly I knew this would happen as soon as you posted. First the insult then a shift of direction to something you have a clue about. Thank you Cam for turning us away from the original discussion and creating a wonderfully negative thread.

Back on topic:

Police need tighter reigns on their weapons, not free-er ones. That is MY opinion and belief. It is based on what I've read in the news, it is based on my own experience in the field, and I think most of all, its based on a sense of needing our law enforcement personnel to have a higher moral code than a normal person. If I can't expect Police officers to be the best of us, why should I or anyone respect them at all? As with Illinis' example, if I can't trust them to to everything in their power to keep the firing from starting, I might as well get my gun and go after the bad guys myself.

Vigilantism at its best.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

away from the original discussion and creating a wonderfully negative thread

As opposed to what, a thread to accuse, abuse, and mischaracterize police while railing against guns?

Damn, hate it that we missed out on that.

As to the original post in the thread, the only thing I see wrong with what the police did was fail to take out a few of Bell's cronies in the process. Then they could have renamed a whole fucking borough.

[Toddzilla]

I personally believe that the Police should be allowed to shoot anyone they see breaking any law at ant time. Robbery, assault, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

THAT would probably bring the crime rate down.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I personally believe that the Police should be allowed to shoot anyone they see breaking any law at ant time. Robbery, assault, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

THAT would probably bring the crime rate down.

good idea!

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Mexico does not have Less guns Cam, if you truly believe that yer really naive. Just because you can only track 1/5 the guns doesn't mean the other 200% aren't there. Please don't be that guy.

Excuse me, I'm lost. Can someone point me to the thread for posts that make math teachers weep?