Scubaguy62:
You say I'm anti-cop, you're wrong. I am anti-injustice and anti-people who think they are above the law, and who choose to live their lives by the creed of "do as I say, not as I do." Should it matter if they are police officers?
You hold the opinion that the majority cops conduct themselves "above the law"; I and others here wholeheartedly disagree with you. That's why you're being told you're anti-cop. You buy into the media crap.
I could careless what LAPD adopts; I don't live in L.A., but if I did, I would expect the police to respond with the same degree of aggression as they're faced, only in a way that, unlike the "perps," would have greater regard to the safety of innocent bystanders.
Name an innocent bystander who was struck by an LAPD bullet during the North Hollywood shootout. Those who were struck were hit by the suspects' bullets.
Do you believe with the technology available to police departments today, such as FLIR, that it wouldn't have been more advantageous to everyone interested, including the officers that were wounded, to have let the guys go and catch them later, than to risk an all out firefight? You can't tell me that the LAPD is 100% beyond reproach in this area.
Typical "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality of the cop hater. The law enforcement response to Columbine was exactly this, they came in, secured the area, checked with those fortunate enough to escape to get intelligence info about what's going on inside, got appropriate resources together, then went inside. But law enforcement is getting raked over the coals for "not doing enough."
And before you throw around fancy law enforcement terms like FLIR, at least find out what they are about and what their limitations are, and not from what you saw on the Discovery Channel. We already knew what the suspects looked like (they were coming out of the bank when first spotted) so FLIR would not have been needed as overhead helicopters (both LAPD and news) already had an "eye" on the suspects. Had those suspects taken off their telltale clothing and disappeared into a crowd, FLIR would have been useless. The Bank of America where this took place was across the street from a busy shopping center.
Also, it's clear that you don't have a full understanding of what happened that February morning in North Hollywood either. The suspects, when spotted by the passing LAPD officer, ran back into the bank. Officers responded and formed a perimeter around the bank, like they should. The suspects, seeing they were surrounded, were the ones who came out shooting; no officers went into the bank itself until well after the bank robbers left.
but perhaps you'd care to justify your argument to the Miami mother who lost her mentally challenged 49 yr old son, because some cop got trigger happy and shot him dead from behind because the man was being harassed by five (5) other police officers, and wished to break free from such harassment. Here's a man who was well known in his neighborhood, and get this, also well known by these officers to be mentally challenged. How much of a threat would he be to five (5) officers????????????????
There have been lots of incidents in which the mentally unstable have attacked and even killed law enforcement officers. Why is there no outcry for us?
To that is what I am anti. I realize that it's easy to criticize without having walked a mile in the persons shoes, but as I tell my daughter, the appearance of impropriety is sometimes worse than the impropriety itself.
Then perhaps you need to heed your own advice.
Oh and as far as the domestic violence you speak of, how many cases have you dealt with where deep enough investigation has revealed that the woman has been the instigator? Probably not many because they're not deeply investigated and cops just slap the cuffs on the man because of their own gender bias; he is the man; he is the "agressor." That happened to a close friend of mine and it was his wife who assaulted him; he was merely acting in self defense. You think that had any weight with the cops???????
I've taken a few women into custody for domestic violence; California law demands that the person who has shown the most aggression (other than as justifiable self-defense) be taken into custody. The fact is though, men make up 90% or more of domestic violence aggressors.
If you care to discuss this further, let's do it off the board.
I don't really care to discuss it any further, but I won't let attacks like these go private. If you're going to bash my profession in public, I will defend it in public.
