How would you respond to this statement?

[meangreen46]

This was found in another thread. I'm not trying to start a battle....just trying to gauge why I took it offensively and other posters are saying that it's not a big deal.

"Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess."

[serpicoish]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that statement. You can't enforce a law that hasn't been broken. In other words, we don't have a crystal ball. LE cannot protect somebody from being harmed, unless they're witnessing the event or have been contacted prior to the event occuring. Of course, imminent threat would have to be emphasized before a dispatch would be made. The way it is worded may be offensive, but the content isn't completely incorrect.

[meangreen46]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that statement. You can't enforce a law that hasn't been broken. In other words, we don't have a crystal ball. LE cannot protect somebody from being harmed, unless they're witnessing the event or have been contacted prior to the event occuring. Of course, imminent threat would have to be emphasized before a dispatch would be made. The way it is worded may be offensive, but the content isn't completely incorrect.

The first and third sentences are what I am concerned with. The first is just incorrect because it states an absolute....Police Do not Protect. (wrong)

The third sentence is also incorrect because I have personally helped/saved/assisted in multiple situations where the crime was in progress.

[Uhhlexxxis]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that statement. You can't enforce a law that hasn't been broken. In other words, we don't have a crystal ball. LE cannot protect somebody from being harmed, unless they're witnessing the event or have been contacted prior to the event occuring. Of course, imminent threat would have to be emphasized before a dispatch would be made. The way it is worded may be offensive, but the content isn't completely incorrect.

+1

Sometimes I feel the "damned if I do, damned if I don't"

We try and try again for that proactive patrol. Talking to the public, listening to their concerns. We cannot be everywhere at once. I wish that was the damn truth but it's impossible. There's 1 of us for thousands of you. I encourage the public to take action and make the most reasonable decisions that aren't life threatening. A simple 911 phone call works.

[serpicoish]

The first sentence is an overstatement, granted. His use of the word "oxymoron" isn't appropriate.

The second sentence isn't incorrect. All people should have their own self-interest in mind. You cannot DEPEND on someone else to help you, at the time you need help. There's really not arguing that point. We aren't Superman.

Of course, a viewpoint , such as we're discussing, all depends on where you live. If you have an extremely large population spread out over a large area, you aren't going to be able to respond to all situations as quickly as you could if you lived in a small town. It's all subjective. Maybe you should ask the individual that posted those remarks how he/she came to feel that way.

[meangreen46]

+1

Sometimes I feel the "damned if I do, damned if I don't"

We try and try again for that proactive patrol. Talking to the public, listening to their concerns. We cannot be everywhere at once. I wish that was the damn truth but it's impossible. There's 1 of us for thousands of you. I encourage the public to take action and make the most reasonable decisions that aren't life threatening. A simple 911 phone call works.

This came from an email stating why a person should own a gun. While I'm all for it...and I tell people the same thing...I think this author went over board. thats all. Nothing else implied, nothing else to read into. The satement was just a little "f cops..we need to do it ourselves because they don't do thier jobs" attitude.

[serpicoish]

And they are entitled to their opinion. Nobody promised us we would be loved by the public. WE certainly don't love all of them.

[Samuelx]

People are so quick to forget that what we do on a regular basis often prevents crimes from occurring in the first place.

[kel-tec-innovations]

I'm not against LE matter of fact majority of my friends are LE's. My respond is I feel that way. Police are no obligated to protect people, their job description is to up hold the law and keep order.

Police are given a negative image since they aren't here to reward people but to punish. So its not strange that cops are given a negative image like a school hall monitor is not liked by the students.

Anyways things needs to be changed and give police a better image.
1. The Media always reports cop beating innocents, being racist, killings etc.
Solution: Media should also broadcast all the great things cops have done but it goes unrecognized.
2. The police don't really mingles with public in uniform, like walking into a store or fast food chain they separate themselves.
Solution: Talk? don't look so stiff and intimating?
3. arresting law abiding citizen and giving ridiculous citation that is easily dismissed in court due to the officers ignorance but wastes alot of the innocent citizens time, but cops goes unpunished or accountable for giving wrong citation etc.
Solution: Be more educated and knowledgeable?


People shouldn't talk to police cause they will screw you. Watch the video and let the lawyer explain the law.
"YOU CAN'T GIVE POLICE ANY INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP YOU IN A COURT OF LAW."

"WHAT YOU TELL THE POLICE CAN NOT BE USED IN A TRIAL TO HELP YOU, IT CAN ONLY BE USED AGAINST YOU" Due to the "hear say" Rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(A)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

You can blame why people feel that way towards police officers.

[meangreen46]

And they are entitled to their opinion. Nobody promised us we would be loved by the public. WE certainly don't love all of them.

I agree completely.

[meangreen46]

People are so quick to forget that what we do on a regular basis often prevents crimes from occurring in the first place.

Exactly.

[Jonathan Doe]

Law enforcement is not only reactive. There are proactive enforcements, also.

[meangreen46]

Here is the original post. Got a whole different reaction from the general population here. Which I am finding out....don't really like LEO's. LOL. Cant win them all.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=335962

[POLICESTATE]

Law enforcement is not only reactive. There are proactive enforcements, also.

Like backscatter Xray vans for instance? The traditional means of proactive policing I was fine with; community policing, informants, investigations into organized crime. The more modern things that are starting to come out, and software based prediction and crap like that? Not good.

[POLICESTATE]

People are so quick to forget that what we do on a regular basis often prevents crimes from occurring in the first place.

This might wander a little bit but there is an overall point.

There is no arguing that having patrol officers around town deter a lot of crime, but the punishment part of the justice system serves as a strong deterrent as well. So does having a strong community and neighborhood watch programs. However we see in California the community is fractured, in many places even non-existent, to make matters worse there are whole groups of law-abiding folks who don't trust the police.

Somehow we need to get back to the way it was, when police officers were part of the community, I think in many cities they are not viewed as such, they are different. I love how police refer to non-police persons as "civilians" when they are in fact civilians themselves. The only people who are not civilians are members of the armed forces.

But when it comes to violent crime, if you can't protect yourself, then you have to wait until someone can arrive that can. I believe that regular folks and LEOs should work together to keep things safe, the cops can't do it all on their own, the more they try the more it violates our rights. Without a law enforcement mechanism you end up with vigilantism. Neither concept is conducive to a free society.

LEOs are part of the community, they need to be treated as such. As equals.