Rob,
1) Not every question is an attack.
2) If being uninformed is the problem, LEOs should be glad we ask questions.
3) If we clearly indicate that our questions and opinions are based only on the information we have, then we should be evaluated only on the interpretation of those available facts.
4) We can be kicked off a bulletin board or the internet, shunned by others, etc., but nobody has the right or the power to tell any of us that we can not ask questions so long as we do not otherwise break the law (e.g. interfere with an investigation, engage in harassment, etc.).
5) Nobody will ever stop me from asking whether taking a life (of anyone, by anyone) was necessary.
6) Automatic pro- or anti-law enforcement opinions are as equally invalid as pro- or anti-civilian opinions.
7) When vehement arguments are forwarded (especially with no apparent support) they generate opposition.
8) Automatically saying we must trust law enforcement because they have/are/represent authority leads to tyranny neither of us believe in.
9) I do not believe LEOs are investigated or suffer more severely than civilians after use of deadly force. If anything, civilians have AT LEAST as hard a time because they may have to fight against the entire law enforcement and prosecuting efforts which have virtually unlimited resources (compared to the defendant's). The civilian gets "the treatment" at the scene, is arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail until he can get magistrated, raise bail, etc. or until he is indicted, tried, and judged. LEO gets a desk job or is put on leave. Either can lose his job (though for different reasons). Either can have similar emotional/psychological/sociological consequences.
10) Though it is true that the cop has the obligation to go into harm's way, he (unlike the civilian) does not have to prove he could have fled.
11) This constant drumbeat (by many LEOs and their supporters) of how LEOs are unappreciated, underpaid, vilified by uninformed, ungrateful civilians, etc. is poisoning what good relationship remains between the two sides and deepening a "we against them" situation where "sides" should NOT exist. Frankly, outside of my county, I have seen more LEOs degrade civilians than I have seen civilians degrade LEOs.
12) If being a cop is so bad that the "rewards" (e.g. emotional, physical, financial, etc.) do not compensate for the downside, then let's recall that LEOs are all volunteers, not draftees, and (so far as I know) not on contracts for specified time periods. They can resign and find other work. (And they never have to serve the United Nations, etc....)
13) Nobody anywhere can say I am anti-LEO. I have supported them financially, with free training, in the field (both when I was armed and when I was unarmed), and in comments for TV news, with various media reporters, and among other emergency personnel (fire dept & EMS).
14) They are people doing a tough job. One that I repeatedly state I would not, indeed could not do. They make their decisions, which I support, but when they make mistakes they must bear the consequences the same as anyone must, on any job.
15) Yes, LEOs die in line of duty. But each year on their jobs and from job-related injury and illness I believe you will find:
- more firemen die than LEOs,
- more EMS personnel die than LEOs,
- more fishermen (in the Bering Sea) die than LEOs (been reading National Geographic again),
- and, occasionally, even a school teacher gets shot.
16) As a percentage of total training, CHL holders here in Texas get much more training in non-violent dispute resolution and shoot/no-shoot decision-making than LEOs receive. Obviously, when the LEO is in training for almost a year however, percentages don't indicate the true picture. (Thought I'd try to make you smile at least once!)
-----------
I don't mean this to be a rant (my voice is calm, hands & eyes steady, palms dry, etc.). I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should not condemn LEOs because "they shot somebody". But imagine what a fix I (as a civilian) would be in if I were tried in court, for a questionable shooting, and that lady from your grocery store happened to be the jury foreman. (As Rich says, "Oy!")
I guess, at the moment, I am upset that:
- many civilians truly despise the folks that keep my family and me safe;
- many LEOs treat civilians like we are stupid and unworthy of common courtesy; and
- the forced "professional courtesy" displayed by many LEOs toward civilians exemplies legally hidden (but intentionally obvious) disdain for anyone "not good enough" to be a LEO.
Please be glad we stupid, uninformed, disloyal, unappreciative civilians ask our questions here. With you representing the cops, DC and others providing the research, and Rich keeping the party clean, it will all turn out okay in the end.
1) Not every question is an attack.
2) If being uninformed is the problem, LEOs should be glad we ask questions.
3) If we clearly indicate that our questions and opinions are based only on the information we have, then we should be evaluated only on the interpretation of those available facts.
4) We can be kicked off a bulletin board or the internet, shunned by others, etc., but nobody has the right or the power to tell any of us that we can not ask questions so long as we do not otherwise break the law (e.g. interfere with an investigation, engage in harassment, etc.).
5) Nobody will ever stop me from asking whether taking a life (of anyone, by anyone) was necessary.
6) Automatic pro- or anti-law enforcement opinions are as equally invalid as pro- or anti-civilian opinions.
7) When vehement arguments are forwarded (especially with no apparent support) they generate opposition.
8) Automatically saying we must trust law enforcement because they have/are/represent authority leads to tyranny neither of us believe in.
9) I do not believe LEOs are investigated or suffer more severely than civilians after use of deadly force. If anything, civilians have AT LEAST as hard a time because they may have to fight against the entire law enforcement and prosecuting efforts which have virtually unlimited resources (compared to the defendant's). The civilian gets "the treatment" at the scene, is arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail until he can get magistrated, raise bail, etc. or until he is indicted, tried, and judged. LEO gets a desk job or is put on leave. Either can lose his job (though for different reasons). Either can have similar emotional/psychological/sociological consequences.
10) Though it is true that the cop has the obligation to go into harm's way, he (unlike the civilian) does not have to prove he could have fled.
11) This constant drumbeat (by many LEOs and their supporters) of how LEOs are unappreciated, underpaid, vilified by uninformed, ungrateful civilians, etc. is poisoning what good relationship remains between the two sides and deepening a "we against them" situation where "sides" should NOT exist. Frankly, outside of my county, I have seen more LEOs degrade civilians than I have seen civilians degrade LEOs.
12) If being a cop is so bad that the "rewards" (e.g. emotional, physical, financial, etc.) do not compensate for the downside, then let's recall that LEOs are all volunteers, not draftees, and (so far as I know) not on contracts for specified time periods. They can resign and find other work. (And they never have to serve the United Nations, etc....)
13) Nobody anywhere can say I am anti-LEO. I have supported them financially, with free training, in the field (both when I was armed and when I was unarmed), and in comments for TV news, with various media reporters, and among other emergency personnel (fire dept & EMS).
14) They are people doing a tough job. One that I repeatedly state I would not, indeed could not do. They make their decisions, which I support, but when they make mistakes they must bear the consequences the same as anyone must, on any job.
15) Yes, LEOs die in line of duty. But each year on their jobs and from job-related injury and illness I believe you will find:
- more firemen die than LEOs,
- more EMS personnel die than LEOs,
- more fishermen (in the Bering Sea) die than LEOs (been reading National Geographic again),
- and, occasionally, even a school teacher gets shot.
16) As a percentage of total training, CHL holders here in Texas get much more training in non-violent dispute resolution and shoot/no-shoot decision-making than LEOs receive. Obviously, when the LEO is in training for almost a year however, percentages don't indicate the true picture. (Thought I'd try to make you smile at least once!)
-----------
I don't mean this to be a rant (my voice is calm, hands & eyes steady, palms dry, etc.). I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should not condemn LEOs because "they shot somebody". But imagine what a fix I (as a civilian) would be in if I were tried in court, for a questionable shooting, and that lady from your grocery store happened to be the jury foreman. (As Rich says, "Oy!")
I guess, at the moment, I am upset that:
- many civilians truly despise the folks that keep my family and me safe;
- many LEOs treat civilians like we are stupid and unworthy of common courtesy; and
- the forced "professional courtesy" displayed by many LEOs toward civilians exemplies legally hidden (but intentionally obvious) disdain for anyone "not good enough" to be a LEO.
Please be glad we stupid, uninformed, disloyal, unappreciative civilians ask our questions here. With you representing the cops, DC and others providing the research, and Rich keeping the party clean, it will all turn out okay in the end.
