paracaidista508

I am well aware the offense comes with jail time IF CONVICTED. You posited that his statement alone was enough to land him in jail. If you wanted to include all the other evidence, victims et al with it perhaps you should have. After all you are a lawyer and as such should know better. As for a docket being confidential? They are public record when there is a conviction. Give me one docket where someone went to prison for just a statement and no other evidence or victim to come forward - for sexual assault BTW just to keep it real. I would be very interested in reading how someone went to prison without one iota of Probable Cause which led directly to "beyond a reasonable doubt" as you have claimed. Im asking that because you are claiming Trump is a rapist based solely upon his statement. Your quote for your reference: " By the way: It wasn't "locker room talk"; it was a confession of sexual assault. PEOPLE GO TO JAIL FOR IT. IN MY PREVIOUS WORK AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN. "

In another thread this performance was alleged to be all about patriotism...not in this lady's eyes apparently.

No--- Just look at the stats behind mental illness, suicide, depression and mental illness drugs being used in Utah. Not saying its a mormon thing, but if you could ever assemble a large enough group of Mormons together to evaluate for (u name it) whatever- Utah is the place to do it. Definately wound too tight in Utah. No one can ever be good enough there.

So, Mormons line up against Trump to try and get McMullen in office. That doesnt work so they vote for Trump while holding their nose because of some locker room talk (which a=was offensive BTW, but it doesnt even compare to abortion or baby murder as I call it). Now MOTAB is singing at the inauguration??? How classic. Some of the people who hate him the most will be validating him. He does know what he is doing. Now the libs will hate us even more than they do now. Mormons will be ridiculed for this and Trump will defend them. Long story short--- mormons will love Trump when it is all over with as he will be our only friend. Odd how many people believe we (LDS) are misogynistic, racist etc and now we will validate their beliefs by siding with Trump. For the record I voted for him. Much better than any liberal. Job well done Mr Trump!

Id post one but I have not had home teachers in a couple years.haha

First problem is quite possibly you think other people dwell on how much you know/dont know. Are there people like that? Sure, but very few. Most people dont care and probably never think about it. Secondly, if you are trying to be that guy/gal in gospel doctrine who knows everything and answers every question, well no one cares about them either because it is usually just showmanship. Ask for a calling as a gospel doctrine teacher. That calling is best for those who are lacking in knowledge as it becomes a forced study program and you learn what the church would like you/us to learn. Anyway- dont dwell on it lest you become like so many in Utah who are choking down anti-depressants by the handful so they can cope with not being able to keep up with Brother / Sister ( insert any well-known mormon surname). Many of those people who are outwardly just so perfect and do everything right either dont have much of a life or it is a hobby. You dont have to be all/know all to be righteous. Their lives are often just as screwed up as everyone else's, they just conceal it well. Relax

"her being removed from their lives may have been good for them on some level" Celebrate much???? ----look who came around to realize there are actually people who we are all better off without. Funny thing is this case is tame compared to what police routinely deal with. She just chose the ending that made the news.

Trump didnt mock mormons. No one likes Mormons anyway so we need to just vote for people who most closely align with our values. Remember when evangelicals sat out the last election between Romney and Obama??? It was because Evangelicals generally dislike Mormons....so we (LDS) were not happy bout that. Well now we have Obama. Talk about someone who is adversarial to our values.

Nothing in sec 89 bout that...right there with caffeineted sodas and endless desserts

I'm not going to look for anything. Knock yourself out.I'm doubtful the bible has a problem with suing people who are anti religous. And if it does??? Well dont sue the school then. Also, perhaps you need to take a lude and not take everything I write so seriously.

You dont say if he knows you, if you have some relationship with him etc..you said you speak with his parents so I assume you know each other. That being said, I dont know him but if some young lady were writing me and I was interested in her my priority would be to write her back before anyone else to include my parents. That is just me though. Most kids these days find it an ordeal to even put pen to paper much less address an envelope and go through the hardship of just enduring the letter writing effort. So either he is just isnt into you, he is lazy and inconsiderate or he just has not received your letter(s) yet. Your guess is as good as mine. Many will make excuses that since he is in the MTC/on mission that he has little or no time. Until I see an MTC schedule that remotely resembles Army or USMC boot camp then he has time enough to write a novel to you.I didnt go on a mission, but I have been in many conversations over the years where RMs discussed how rough the MTC was in terms of lack of sleep. Ill just say this- it aint that tough if what they say is true. If I (and everyone else) could write multiple letters home and to my GF each week while I was in boot camp then someone at the MTC can write too- they are just choosing not to. If my daughter were writing a missionary and he never wrote back Id tell her to dump him. If you are not worth writing to in his mind then he is not worth being around.

I say go to the events...get good grades, get a scholarship, become a lawyer and sue them to ruins. Then nobody will have any school stuff on weekends because they will be broke. That will teach em. I do agree- this is likely illegal. Find someone of another denomination to make a stink though. NOBODY cares what mormons think to include the courts.

I agree except when you are in college trying to figure out how to pay the tuition because you couldnt get a scholarship then it isnt so superficial anymore.

I really hope I didnt give the impression I felt bad about it......ha

I regard a MM or PP as one who not only does all the standard textbook righteous things, but also makes sure to let everyone else know they do. Some even like to act as a form of morality police to keep the rest of us in line. I do not ever recall using the terminology towards anyone, but several years ago as an adult I was approached by someone in Priesthood leadership in our ward who told me I should be wearing a white shirt to church as non-white or multi-colored shirts were not authorized and that I should have shaved ( I had a 1 day growth). Anyway I told him I was not going to comply with any of his made-up Peter Priesthood rules and he should mind his own business. He insisted it was church policy so I told him to reference it in church policy and/or sick the Bishop on me if it was that big of a deal. I never heard from him again or the Bishop for that matter. He was/and still is one of those guys who likes to itemize the service he does for others and all the sacrifices he makes to be in the high council. In one ward I was asked why I missed so much church and I told them it was because of my shift at work (police). They said well this has been going on for a couple years maybe you can get a desk job or find a new career. I told him ...well I wont repeat it. Anyways---my dos centavos

Agreed, I'm addressing the ones lamenting their situations. I have family members who are as broke as you can get, but they are happy. Also happy to ask for a bailout from their parents or grandparents too on not too rare an occasion. As for outside the us...yes agreed. Our American poor are richer in terms of material things than most everyone in the foreign countries I have been stationed in.

Experience has shown me that there are many who live in poverty simply by their own choice and they lack the drive to climb up out of it. Obviously this isnt a blanket generalization, but it does apply to a large amount of people. In my younger days when I was poor, I worked in a convenience store in probably one of the nastiest part of town. In my few years working there I was amazed at the constant stream of people buying garbage. The typical transaction was a 40 or a six pack, pack of smokes and chips or something like that. Some of these folks did that a couple times during my shift esp to get more liquor. Some were so frequent and predictable I had their choice of smokes ready for them when they got to the register. Families would even do their grocery shopping there (this store was comparable to a circle k- def not a place you would buy groceries). They bring in their kids, shop and then check out with two transactions. 1 was the groceries and the kids bought them with the old tear out food stamps and the second was the beer, smokes and lottery tickets and mom/dad would pay in cash. Fast forward to 20 yrs of police work, I have been inside literally hundreds of different homes of poor people. Most of them smoked, most drank and if i was to check the floorboard of their cars I bet I would find old non-winning lottery tickets. Of course some of these homes did not have these things going on, but they were rare. Imagine a pack-a-day smoking habit. I think back then Marlboro Reds were $1.25 per pack. If the smoker simply kept that 1.25 each day and saved that every day for 1 year they could buy $450 worth of the stock of Phillip Morris (Now Altria) , reinvest dividends and they would have $311,000 today. That is just a one-time investment. Most smokers in the US are the poorer people. The investment they make every day in tobacco not only contributes to ill health, it also keeps them poor. In the meantime, I invest heavily in Altria stock (Marlboro and Copenhagen and other sin stocks as well) and will continue to invest a sizable portion of my portfolio there since in the long term I'll be taxed to the hilt to pay for their medical care, food stamps, welfare etc. They have a choice and they choose to smoke and drink over pretty much everything else. I feel sorry for them only in the respect that they dont have the motivation or will power to quit and do something productive for themselves and build a better future for their kids. For full disclosure, I am an ex smoker so I know what it is like to battle an addiction- not fun, but definitely not as hard as it seems. http://www.buyupside.com/backtest/divrebackdisplaysummary.php?symbol=mo&amountinitial=450&amount=0&interval=1&start_month=05&start_year=1982&end_month=05&end_year=2016&submit=Calculate+Results Another example- Heres an acquaintance who upon leaving the military they were under the impression they would inherit a family business and live the good life. Well just a few years after leaving the service the business was sold, the money squandered and this person never saw a dime of it. So instead of moving on and doing whatever, they have blamed the lack of inheriting the business as the cause of their poverty. Never mind the fact GI bill was avail to go to school, never mind they chose jobs in small towns where employers had no benefits, never mind they refused to invest in a small stock or mutual fund to fund their retirement (because the market is rigged), never mind the fact they purchased a Whole Life insurance policy and got robbed blind by an insurance agent and still do to this day. They have even taken a number of loans against it over the years. You see, all the opportunity was in front of this person, but they chose to be beaten down, they chose to not make an effort, they chose not to go get a college education which was essentially free and they chose to put what little money they did have under a mattress and now 50 yrs later they are living off Social Security and that is all they have. Literally ALL they have. It is too bad, but they have listened to no one. Could have done so much more, but chose not to. I have more real stories like this, but wee all know people in this situation. It is not the fault of the CEO, it is largely their fault. Perhaps not their fault for getting into it, but certainly for dwelling in it because they just accepted poverty as their way of life. There are situations of course where poverty just happens due to whatever goes on in life, but much of it is controllable by the one who is in poverty. It may take time to escape it, but it can be done- with discipline. As for the disparity in CEO pay- who cares what they make? No one starts a business so they can subsidize others. They build it because they want to make money and will pay any needed labor what the market will demand. The CEO owes nobody a thing other than the compensation AGREED upon. The CEO is paid what he/she is paid because the board of directors decided they were worth it for whatever reason. When people start quitting for other jobs, the the pay will be increased until market equilibrium is reached in terms of compensation.

Mirkwood, I did some research on the two commentators in the article. Interesting findings: Jason Fritz- This guy is currently a Doctoral Student. Here is a link to his LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-fritz-14b10420 The Article mentions he has three tours in Iraq as if it is relevant. Perhaps it may be so I read what he wrote about his experiences there in his profile. Bottom line- he did his actual combat time inside an M1 tank probably running people over and smashing through the rebublican guard in an all out slaughter. I will definitely give him and his Soldiers MEGA CREDIT for that. Nothing to do with riot control or police work. His second tour was an admin job as well as his third which was as a personnel officer (HR) So since then he has found his way into studying cops and stuff. No police experience. He is credible as it applies to smashing through enemy defenses with the Armor might of the US army as that is what he did. Police work? Well he has been reading a lot so now he is a credible researcher who is also a Monday morning QB. He is also anti-cop. He doesn’t come out and say that, but check out this statement from an article of his: “We simply do not know how many Americans are killed by police, to say nothing of the justifications for these deaths. The most prominent cases will be investigated, but most will not.” http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/getting-police-militarization-under-control/ Unbelievable! Most cases will not even be investigated? His extensive research should show him that there is not one officer involved shooting where someone dies where there is not a lawsuit which follows. That being the case, if we had lawyers discovering hundreds of shooting cases a year that were not even investigated we surely would have known. This is just a bomb throwing cop hater. Next up, Scriven King: AirForce Security cop. Basically guarded a gate for a couple years and guarded a desk for a few more. He cites one example of him managing a barricaded suspect. Crap as a civilian police supervisor I have personally managed at least a hundred of those things. Weak sauce. Anyway he doesn’t have any real LE experience and his military experience is just standard enlisted stuff…following orders and managing a small group of people and other misc admin NCO duties. No mention of riot experience either. https://www.linkedin.com/in/scrivenking Interestingly the Author of the Article itself is a four year USMC Infantry vet. Why he would go ask two dudes who have never stood a line with a riot shield, helmet and hickory stick is beyond me. There are probably 2-500 cops on LAPD who can tell you all about it. Anyway- as for Ferguson’s response. Don’t know what to make of it as I don’t have the intel they had or allegedly had. I do know a cop got shot and part of the town was burning before the riot police were even deployed so don’t think the cops are the ones who started all this.

Ok so you want others to understand your point of view but you don't want to understand theirs. Got it. This is intellectually honest to you? You realize this is what Conservatives often accuse Liberals of doing, so I guess that makes you no different from they. Well pot meet kettle. You labeled my opinion re the oxygen thief as "disgusting." Using your own justification on understanding others you also are intellectually dishonest. Alright, so why then do you take issue with me not wanting to see these people more heavily armed and equipped than they already are? If they're that corrupt, why should I trust them with all that military equipment? People like you keep telling me that there's nothing at all wrong with militarizing police since as a law-abiding citizen I wouldn't have anything to worry about, but how can that be if you acknowledge their corruption? Isn't corruption, by definition, something that means we can't trust them? Use the system for cvhange the gov't offers us. If you get enught people together in MD and/or Baltimore you can get a law passed to restrict the police. Until you successfully accomplish that, you are stuck with the system you have. If the liberal gov and mayor didnt want your cops to have the stuff they have, well they wouldnt have it. The police have multiple levels of red tap[e they have to negotiate and it is all at the mercy of the ELECTED CIVILIAN govt in your area. Once all the Freddy Grey cops get aquitted of the murder charge and the populace destroys the rest of the city I'm sure the balance of the law abiding citizens will all be on your side and it should be very easy to disarm the police down to their revolvers and get them back into a shirt and tie or whatever uniform you approve of. They already won't. If somebody comes to shoot up the office where I work, response time means by the time anybody gets here I'm already dead or the suspect has been tackled. This isn't the cops' fault, it's just the reality of the situation. Yep it isnt the cops fault because the public does not want them there and the local gov't has demonstrated they will not support the police and/or will charge them with crimes without probable cause in order to satisfy the public lust for retribution. The Israelis deal with a thousand times more terrorism than we do. How can you use that excuse? That's just a red herring. I'm pretty sure I wrote that if our situation degraded to the same level we would likely need to adopt the same or similar tactics. I never said that is what we are looking at now. Here is the comment: Hopefully our security situation (terrorists, not normal criminals) doesnt deteriorate to the level where the public will accept the fact you will be shot in order to take out the hostage taker behind you if neccessary. I certainly hope not. If I ever get to the point where I'm happy about somebody dying then things have gone horribly wrong in my soul. Well I certainly hope that some day you or a family member never becomes a victim of a very serious violent crime, because your opinion would likely change. Even Geraldo Rivera has now changed his mind about some of the approaches to terrorism as a result of his daughter being caught up in the Paris attacks last year. He was always taking the light approach and always giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt until it involved his family. She thankfully wasnt hurt, but now even he thinks differently. It is easy to be a monday morning QB if it isnt your perfomance or your team on the field being critiqued. Wait, you're the one who said "Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use." So which is it? Are they almost identical or are the police rules too strict? Edit: Maybe what you meant here is that the military's rules are currently too strict because they're the same as the police. Ok I'll concede that if it's true. Though frankly in most cases police rules are less strict. If I'm a soldier on the line and my orders are not to fire until fired upon, I don't get the "I was in fear for my life" excuse if I fire first or I kill someone who was unarmed. Yes too strict for the military. We were mandated in Iraq toi use a force continuum that looked like it was copied out of my police operations manual. They even wanted us to use escalation or de-escalation of force techniques using verbal, pepper spray, batons, pain compliance holds etc...the military isnt taught that stuff nor do they carry the equip for it. The force continuum for police nationwide is pretty good. It isnt followed very well in the extreme minority of instances, but that is operator error, not the error of the law. Maybe we are, but your tone was celebratory. Not once did you acknowledge that it was unfortunate that it became necessary. Look, if you feel good about it then just own it. Just quit trying to play it both ways. I am owning it, it just isnt the celebration you want it to be. I dont care about his poor upbringing (if that is what he had) or that he had a bad day. He is not a mental patient either so we cant excuse him for that. He was simply a predator and I dont feel sorry for him. He made his choices and in the end he decided he was going to try and kill someone so he could avoid accountability for his violent felonious actions. I'll take the "disgusting" label. You do know what 'retribution' means, don't you, Textspeak? Yes even this stupid cop knows what it means. I wasn't looking for an English lesson. What I still do not know is what why you mentioned that in your response to me.

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Ok so you get criticism from the customer or whomever. Now if they are wrong does your organization just do whatever they want simply because they said so...? Without any credentials, authority or even legal backing for the change? I get the whole citizen vs govt thing where we pay you and you do what we say thing, but I bet your business doesn't halt, spin and go another direction because someone is upset. Keep in mind that on every single investigation the police go on, there will be someone mad at us by the time we leave for whatever reason. Usually it is because someone is going to jail. We never get called because someone is having a birthday party.for your edification. Ok so you have a job that's unpopular with the people you come into contact with. The same is true of social workers, people who serve summonses and dentists. When do we start issuing them military camo and military rifles? The question wasn’t how someone was armed… so here goes again. Ok so you get criticism from the customer or whomever. Now if they are wrong does your organization just do whatever they want simply because they said so...? I’m curious to know. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Well when the disagreement reaches a point where neither side will give in or see it the other person's way yea, I blow it off. Personally, I never felt like I was more prone to violate someone's rights depending upon how I am dressed. Are there cops out there who could be? I suppose, but I dont personally know any. Anyway- the camo, green, tan or whatever does not bug me in the least. Keep in mind Im not a cop any more and am just another one of the citizens and I am subject to the same stuff you are. Ok so you aren't open to understanding other peoples' perspectives. Gotcha. (I mean that was obvious, but at least you acknowledge it.) You don't have to agree with someone in order to understand where they're coming from. Even if I don’t agree I still don’t have to understand…do I? or is there some law which says I have to understand someone’s concern? Personally I don’t see an issue and my agency doesn’t do that anyway. That said, even upon seeing camo I don’t need a trigger warning. It means nothing to me and I don’t understand why it freaks some people out and I dont really care at this point. Keep in mind there are a lot more pople out there who absolutely hate the standard police uniform and cops in general so if I keep things in perspective, the camo is probably much less hated. Again- I’m not concerned with it because it doesn’t matter. No one is working patrol shifts anywhere in this state to my knowledge so locally it isn’t an issue. I suppose if all the cops are patrolling Baltimore in camo, then you guys have a problem.. I have not heard of that happening there either. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Is that what this is about for you? Liberals v Conservatives? When it comes to LE and how a particular agency is run? Yes That's a very narrow view. You probably therefore think me a Liberal, which would send my friends (or anyone else who knows me personally) into fits of hysterical laughter. Ok, what does that have to do with how an agency is run? On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: As for various municipalities, the mayor, governor etc have a lot of influence over the police chief and his/her top commanders as they are "at will." Traditionally cops are very conservative, but if an agency is run and governed by liberals for a generation or more, the MO of the agency will reflect that mindset eventually. All the way from police corruption to a mentality of integrity, the cops will eventually morph into the organization the govt over it wants it to be. Take Chicago, NY, LAPD, Baltimore, Wash DC, New Orleans. Some of the most corrupt LE orgs around and how long have they been led and governed by liberals??? Forever with an exception or two. There are some PDs which have been liberal governed for decades and dont have these issues, but the biggest and the most corrupt are liberal-run. I know it. I'm in Baltimore and I see it firsthand. Good that you acknowledge the corruption. This is where cases like Freddie Gray come from. Everyone knows Baltimore pd is corrupt as is the local govt which runs it, hence my comment above. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Elevated shooting position is always safer than shooting through other people to get to the one needing to be shot. As for the ferguson thing. I'm pretty sure that is why he was up there. Did they have people up in the surrounding buildings also?? They should have and perhaps they did. Send a FOIA to Ferguson and ask. My assertion is it is an elevated shooting platform. An elevated shooting position will be selected by a police sniper 99% of the time over a ground position when there is a choice. as for the superbowl sniper thing: I placed that there to illustrate that even in an environment where the crowd is not rioting, the elevated shooting position is a valid tactic as it is what is being done. You cant think in terms of absolutely eliminating all risk to others. If we do that, then one can never really eliminate threats such as active shooters. Once it gets around that the police will take no risk at all, then hostage taking will become a national past time. From a position like that, the risk comes when the bullet penetrates fully and hits someone behind. I'd also point out - again, that in a riot situation people aren't standing still in neat rows. You take that shot and you'll probably hit the wrong person as people shift and jostle around. It's security theater at best, because you'd have to do a lot better than "oops, oh well" if an innocent takes that round. I suggest you use the process in MD/Baltimore and get a law passed which says cops are not to take any risks which might hurt anyone- you will feel so muchbetter knowing they will do nothing to help you or anyone else until the scene is absolutely 100% cold. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Hopefully our security situation (terrorists, not normal criminals) doesnt deteriorate to the level where the public will accept the fact you will be shot in order to take out the hostage taker behind you if neccessary. Yeah hopefully, but if it ever does I'm sure you'll be right there to defend it, amirite? Probably because leading up to that will be the cops refusing to go into those situations until the terrorists are done shooting everyone or running out of ammo. At that point, anything that happens cant be blamed on the cops. The isreaelis got tired of having school housed full of kids slaughtered because the police and military spent too much time trying to play peacekeeper. Now terrorists don’t take hostages anymore. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: Yea I am being sarcastic. If the word credit offends you so much choose a nicer word for me to use. I just may use it to make you feel better about my failure to use eloquent language in the presence of sensitive people. It isn't about sensitivity at all. It's about a glimpse of how you see things. If you can't understand why it's problematic to see someone viewing killing someone in a positive light, then I don't know what else to say. Ok- well I’m glad you see it that way. If you got to see the side of some of these people I see, you would likely change your mind- then mebbe not. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: You would know if I didnt transfer from one role to the other because I would be in the news. That aside, after coming back from Iraq I never went back to police work because I got wounded and med technology was not able to make me whole again so I am no longer fit medically for duty. I would have transitioned just fine. BTW- Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use. As for his summary execution by drone, well he has his own rules. Ok, so you're okay with the idea of the military and the police having the same rules of engagement? No, the police rules of engagement are too strict for the military in a war zone. Lots of military members have died because they have to wait till they get shot at first before engaging an armed insurgent in Iraq/Afghanistan. Those rules work here in the US, not in the middle east. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: I'm ok with him getting shot. He had it coming and I even said "yet." It was going to happen because he was not going to be taken alive. Anyway, I dont care if someone deserves it or not, I dont want to shoot anyone. That being said, I will not ALLOW someone to kill me whether they have a mental issue or not. As for that guy being an oxygen thief, yes he was. He was a common felon before he was killed and if he would have survived or not shot at all he likely would still be walking around victimizing others. The feelgood stories of these people reforming and moving on to be productive in society are rare. Could that have been him? Mebbe, but he didnt allow for that change to happen, He chose to get shot. You're probably right that he wouldn't have reformed. You're right that it's rare. And yes I know sometimes they force the issue and the shooting is necessary. That still doesn't justify celebrating the death of another human being, even when it was necessary. I find that attitude revolting under the best of circumstances, and downright terrifying coming from someone who wore a badge. Did I announce we had a party or something? I said he was an oxygen thief…that’s it. We are all better off without him. This suspect was trying to kill people. I firmly believe we are all better off. On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said: You dont (well probably dont) get to see the people we deal with sometimes. I recall a guy who we tracked down after discovering a young girl in an alley with her throat slashed, multiple stab wounds, stripped bare, sexually assaulted ...you get the picture. Tracked him down and there he stood waiting for us with blood splatter all over his shoes, face and wearing a big grin. He was tried, convicted and is probably still in prison. That my friend is someone who this world would be better without. He is stealing your air and mine. Interestingly I bet if he would have come at us with the knife and we shot him, we would have been labeled by the media as heroes and been given CREDIT for taking him out. The girl lived BTW and am sure that now she is an adult she just cant wait for him to get out of prison. I'm not gonna defend people who do that stuff, and yeah maybe the world would be better off without such a person, but I'm not qualified to say that and neither are you. Shooting a suspect is an act of defending one's self or someone else from an immediate threat. What you're talking about right there is retribution and that isn't the same thing. Retribution? What r u talking about?

Posted Wednesday at 9:03 AM (edited) · Report post Sure, I've had that kind of job. And you know what? Whether they were qualified or not to question how I did my job, I still owed them answers and had an obligation to earn and keep their trust. I didn't get to just dismiss their concerns as irrelevant. Know who else I owe answers to? My boss. I don't get to blow off his concerns either. Ok so you get criticism from the customer or whomever. Now if they are wrong does your organization just do whatever they want simply because they said so...? Without any credentials, authority or even legal backing for the change? I get the whole citizen vs govt thing where we pay you and you do what we say thing, but I bet your business doesn't halt, spin and go another direction because someone is upset. Keep in mind that on every single investigation the police go on, there will be someone mad at us by the time we leave for whatever reason. Usually it is because someone is going to jail. We never get called because someone is having a birthday party. How good was your training in civil law? There are libraries full of civil law...what kind specifically? Business, traffic, contract, real estate, securities??? LE does not usually involve itself with much more than civil traffic and perhaps court orders and such because civil law is generally used for the resolution of disputes in courtrooms or for some kind of legal process. Our (LE) lane is criminal law. Gotcha. So when you don't understand something your normal response is to blow it off? Well when the disagreement reaches a point where neither side will give in or see it the other person's way yea, I blow it off. Personally, I never felt like I was more prone to violate someone's rights depending upon how I am dressed. Are there cops out there who could be? I suppose, but I dont personally know any. Anyway- the camo, green, tan or whatever does not bug me in the least. Keep in mind Im not a cop any more and am just another one of the citizens and I am subject to the same stuff you are. Is that what this is about for you? Liberals v Conservatives? When it comes to LE and how a particular agency is run? Yes As for various municipalities, the mayor, governor etc have a lot of influence over the police chief and his/her top commanders as they are "at will." Traditionally cops are very conservative, but if an agency is run and governed by liberals for a generation or more, the MO of the agency will reflect that mindset eventually. All the way from police corruption to a mentality of integrity, the cops will eventually morph into the organization the govt over it wants it to be. Take Chicago, NY, LAPD, Baltimore, Wash DC, New Orleans. Some of the most corrupt LE orgs around and how long have they been led and governed by liberals??? Forever with an exception or two. There are some PDs which have been liberal governed for decades and dont have these issues, but the biggest and the most corrupt are liberal-run. I'm calling B.S. on the elevated firing position story. A guy firing from 12' up may have a better view, but that doesn't make the shot any safer. It's also a strawman to equate not wanting militarized law enforcement with wanting to burn down buildings and riot. Nobody here has ever argued for that, to my knowledge. And what's your point about snipers at the Super Bowl? Is that supposed to prove something? "Oh, there's snipers at the Super Bowl? Well great then, let's get more APCs for my local police department! Totally a logical connection!" Elevated shooting position is always safer than shooting through other people to get to the one needing to be shot. As for the ferguson thing. I'm pretty sure that is why he was up there. Did they have people up in the surrounding buildings also?? They should have and perhaps they did. Send a FOIA to Ferguson and ask. My assertion is it is an elevated shooting platform. An elevated shooting position will be selected by a police sniper 99% of the time over a ground position when there is a choice. as for the superbowl sniper thing: I placed that there to illustrate that even in an environment where the crowd is not rioting, the elevated shooting position is a valid tactic as it is what is being done. You cant think in terms of absolutely eliminating all risk to others. If we do that, then one can never really eliminate threats such as active shooters. Once it gets around that the police will take no risk at all, then hostage taking will become a national past time. The Israelis learned some time ago that when there are hostages taken, just go in and shoot every terrorist right through the hostage. the result is that there are pretty much no hostage situations in Israel anymore in terms of the frequency there used to be. The reason is the bad guy knows he will be shot regardless. Now is that a valid tactic here? No. Hopefully our security situation (terrorists, not normal criminals) doesnt deteriorate to the level where the public will accept the fact you will be shot in order to take out the hostage taker behind you if neccessary. I'm gonna assume here that you're being sarcastic. Just remember, 'credit' was the word you chose, not I. Yea I am being sarcastic. If the word credit offends you so much choose a nicer word for me to use. I just may use it to make you feel better about my failure to use eloquent language in the presence of sensitive people. No, actually, I can't know what you meant. You're a guy who came into this thread and started by giving us your resume about having been in the military and then a police officer, so clearly the two are related in your mind. How do I know whether you transitioned from one to the other? I'm not the one who used the word 'credit' when referring to shootings on the job. You would know if I didnt transfer from one role to the other because I would be in the news. That aside, after coming back from Iraq I never went back to police work because I got wounded and med technology was not able to make me whole again so I am no longer fit medically for duty. I would have transitioned just fine. BTW- Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use. As for his summary execution by drone, well he has his own rules. No, you haven't defended that. I'm just curious as to whether you feel like it's professional to have phrases like this guy had on his weapon. It paints a picture of an officer who's eager to use it. How do you feel about that sort of thing? Or the sign in the Baltimore police van that had a sign like this: Nope, not professional. I think it's a pretty long way from socially acceptable, even in a place like Baltimore. Maybe that's how it is where you are, I don't know. Out here it is getting there. We have had one officer killed in the last...2 weeks ago and three others shot at in ambush situations since then. Protip: If you're going in hot to a debate, it's not a good idea to toss out general arguments that haven't been raised in it without being clear that you aren't responding to anyone in particular. It makes them look like strawmen even if that wasn't your intent. Pro tip? I explained that 7 lines above. Ok so it was ruled justified. I'm wondering if you can see how this post contradicts itself. On the one hand, you seem to be dissatisfied with admin not letting you do your job in a way that could have prevented this suspect from having to be shot, (Good on you for that) but refer to his still being alive as "stealing our oxygen." (not so good) So which is it? Are you glad he's dead or do you wish he weren't? I'm ok with him getting shot. He had it coming and I even said "yet." It was going to happen because he was not going to be taken alive. Anyway, I dont care if someone deserves it or not, I dont want to shoot anyone. That being said, I will not ALLOW someone to kill me whether they have a mental issue or not. As for that guy being an oxygen thief, yes he was. He was a common felon before he was killed and if he would have survived or not shot at all he likely would still be walking around victimizing others. The feelgood stories of these people reforming and moving on to be productive in society are rare. Could that have been him? Mebbe, but he didnt allow for that change to happen, He chose to get shot. You dont (well probably dont) get to see the people we deal with sometimes. I recall a guy who we tracked down after discovering a young girl in an alley with her throat slashed, multiple stab wounds, stripped bare, sexually assaulted ...you get the picture. Tracked him down and there he stood waiting for us with blood splatter all over his shoes, face and wearing a big grin. He was tried, convicted and is probably still in prison. That my friend is someone who this world would be better without. He is stealing your air and mine. Interestingly I bet if he would have come at us with the knife and we shot him, we would have been labeled by the media as heroes and been given CREDIT for taking him out. The girl lived BTW and am sure that now she is an adult she just cant wait for him to get out of prison. I agree it's insane, which is why I didn't argue for that. And I think the word you wanted to use here was "equating" not "equivocating." I could be wrong though. No I meant to use that word. Heres what you said..underlined To me, that sounds a lot like "Why should you exercise your 4th and 5th Amendment rights? If you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about." I don't worry about the guy behind the trigger today. I worry about who might be behind it tomorrow. Doing the things I listed are crimes, not the freedom from self incrimination or unreasonable searches. You are the one who used those two enumerated rights in response to the crimes I listed. That is an equivocation - possibly to confuse other readers who may not be familiar with constitutionally protected rights. That was at least the way I looked at it. Yep, and then Mirkwood responded, and now I know. I then went on to express support for armoring police cars on the basis of what he told me. I know a whole page with maybe ten or twelve posts is an awful lot to read through though, so it's okay if you missed it. I didnt miss it, just wanted to provide info for your edification.

Interesting timing on all of this: Today in Houston Texas. Suspect firing on citizens with an AR15. First cop car that arrives gets 20 bullets fired into it. Miraculously the cop is either lightly wounded or not at all. SWAT arrives in their mean and menacing camo uniforms with their mean and menacing military style body armor and they act like soldiers, find the shooter and kill him. Theres news clips out there and they have armored cars and camo uniforms too. Looking pretty bad. I bet the public really cant get over the fact some cops wearing camo and military style hardware saved their butts. So how is that a bad thing??? because the cops were not wearing shirt and tie and getting shot up like everyone else? If it makes you feel any better, one of the cops was wearing a military style vest with an armor plate in it and he was shot in the plate- likely saved his life. This is exactly why the cops have some military style equip----because it works! https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/185797006-2-dead-multiple-wounded-in-Houston-shooting-rampage/

And some more: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj0mM6QsILNAhVB_GMKHVRSCekQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fksn.com%2F2016%2F01%2F22%2Fflorida-police-officer-wounded-in-ambush-shooting%2F&psig=AFQjCNHnEER4DjwI901XtpClkzSeZhpdIA&ust=1464717522841424 Well these dont exactly illustrate penetration thru metal, but they do illustrate the need for armor. Of course, there are a certain number of police officer murders we (American Public) are ok with so long as no one is offended by some armor or a couple of guns that look full auto. I guess the challenge is finding out exactly how many police officer's deaths we are content to have until we stop worrying about what kind of weapons or armor they have available. On this note, the same applies to our military and their dead who we honor today. Fortunately we are not so picky about what they look like or the equip they use because we always want them to win.