What is the endgame for the all the nonsense going on?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-02-2020, 15:32
Bailey Guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

I'm talking a little out of school here, but when your training goes out the window at first contact, you don't have enough training.

That people do drugs is not any kind of argument. So what? People do drugs so don't have training?

Honestly...you really don't know what you're talking about here. So how much hand-to-hand do you think cops get? I don't recall specifically but it was probably about 40 hours total throughout the academy and then 8 hrs here and there each year.

Not to mention much of police control tactics are as much about compliance as they are control. Certain holds, arm bars, etc...are pain compliance techniques. When someone doesn't feel pain, like when they're on drugs, that shit doesn't work. It also doesn't work when the suspect is much bigger than you, or when he's trying to get your gun, or whatever. And you have to worry about his buddies, his girlfriend, other drunks that wanna help right the injustice being done to fellow drunk at the hands of police, etc...

It's not as simple as saying, "needs more training".
06-02-2020, 15:35
Bailey Guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by VDW

You can get everything you want in the above posts, and quite possibly will. The result will be you get a college educated 35+ year old who didn?t stick with their first career choice to politely take your statement and photograph your injuries. The only arrests that will be made are going to be the suspects who for one reason or another were incapacitated before the officer arrived, or voluntarily submitted to arrest. I guess you could just stop arresting people and switch to a ticket based justice system. Thing is, I?ve heard stories about people who won?t sign tickets or even identify themselves. I?m sure someone will figure out how to deal with those cases.

A few side effects I can see arising pretty quickly: You?re going to have to double the size of most departments to deal with the level of training you want and still be able to staff the streets. You will also have to significantly increase the training budget as you will be continually replacing officers who quickly either decide they can?t stand rotating shifts every few months in addition to continually interrupting their sleep schedule for training, court, and other administrative procedures/hearings or just decide they?re ready for something else (as they couldn?t start out at 21). With this much physical hands on training, you will continually have a large number of officers out on workman?s comp claims, as practicing fighting and defensive tactics in a realistic manner for the demanded competency will invariably cause injuries. You?re also going to repeat all of the above for every officer that forgets they?re not supposed to defend themselves or has to deal with one of the aforementioned incapacitated suspects who suddenly wakes up from their alcohol and or drug induced stupor and wants to fight.

Man, I can?t even imagine how a bunch of 35+ year olds with college degrees and managerial experience would do taking orders as rookies on shift work....

Yep...that's a great post. Quite honestly, the public has been getting the police departments they've been asking for, over the last 20 or 30 years. And it's not working out too well.
06-02-2020, 15:39
Irving

Explain to me ANY situation where more training is harmful. I guess I don't understand why there is even a discussion. People do drugs. And?

It doesn't matter if a person doesn't feel pain, if they are immobilized. Present a single scenario where an officer having more of an ability to control another person would be a detriment.

What I'm heading so far is, people do drugs and don't feel pain, so police shouldn't carry tasers.
06-02-2020, 15:48
Bailey Guns

More training isn't harmful. That's not the point. The point is, there isn't enough time, money and cops to provide the amount of training you're talking about in most departments. And, sure...if a person is immobilized it doesn't matter if they feel pain. The problem is getting them immobilized in a manner that doesn't cause injury to them or the officer or the public.

I get it. You've never been in a situation like we're trying to describe to you. You don't understand what goes into it. Trust me...you don't. If it were as simple as you seem to think it is, don't you think it would've been done by now?
06-02-2020, 16:00
3beansalad

Quote:

Originally Posted by VDW

Man, I can?t even imagine how a bunch of 35+ year olds with college degrees and managerial experience would do taking orders as rookies on shift work....

35 hell, I wouldn't do it at 25. After serving as a FORSCOM MP on Carson (Worldwide Deployable- and boy did we!) I had 4 years practical experience but couldn't get a job as a LEO or CO in the early 90's. I started in the construction industry and made good progress in my trade. A couple of years later, when I could have joined CSPD, I was making a comfortable living and couldn't accept starting as boot on mids.
06-02-2020, 16:04
VDW

Here is an interesting exercise: https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/01/balti...ld-smack-face/

Keep in mind this is in the context of the protests/riots last Friday night. The first (white if that matters) cop tries to gently hold the female?s (black if that matters) arm presumably to place her under arrest, or possibly escort her away. He gets clocked in the head. The second officer (black if that matters) grabs her arms from behind. The female rips her arms away, and punches the first officer in the head a second time...hard. The officer is unable to avoid the impact of either punch. The second officer approaches from behind the female, striking her once near the head/neck, apparently knocking her unconscious.

To those who want to sit on the citizen review board, police brutality?
06-02-2020, 16:32
Bailey Guns

I saw that and I have no problem with it. It's funny...you can hear someone in the background say, "That was her fault, though." Then, when people start crowding around, everyone changes their tune and the po-leece are bad.
06-02-2020, 16:38
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

More training isn't harmful. That's not the point. The point is, there isn't enough time, money and cops to provide the amount of training you're talking about in most departments. And, sure...if a person is immobilized it doesn't matter if they feel pain. The problem is getting them immobilized in a manner that doesn't cause injury to them or the officer or the public.

I get it. You've never been in a situation like we're trying to describe to you. You don't understand what goes into it. Trust me...you don't. If it were as simple as you seem to think it is, don't you think it would've been done by now?

The misunderstanding seems to be on your end. It feels like you are thinking that because I made a suggestion, that I think it's THE solution to fix everything. I never made any such claim. As Gman already pointed out, Jiu jitsu training wouldn't have even solved the issue that started this whole debate. The guy in question was already subdued, yet the police officer elected to keep his knee on that guys throat until he was dead. That isn't a training issue, it's a character one, that likely couldn't be trained out of that individual anyway.

Back to the argument about training though, the only issue I see with my statement is that I said it should be required. VDW is correct, that would be difficult. It wouldn't HAVE to be a burden on the department though. People could seek their own training outside of the department. I'd actually encourage that. Any officer that takes their job, and their own personal safety seriously at all, would seek out additional training beyond the laughable amount provided by the department in the first place. Like in any other profession, most people wouldn't unless they are required. That goes for me to. I don't train in Jiu jitsu. I should, but I don't, and I don't even have a good reason not to.

To sum things up, the argument that officers shouldn't get additional combat training because fighting is hard and people do drugs is so stupid that I won't even bother to address it again. Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because it won't help me in a head on with a semi-truck at highway speeds?
06-02-2020, 16:43
FoxtArt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

Explain to me ANY situation where more training is harmful. I guess I don't understand why there is even a discussion. People do drugs. And?

It doesn't matter if a person doesn't feel pain, if they are immobilized. Present a single scenario where an officer having more of an ability to control another person would be a detriment.

What I'm heading so far is, people do drugs and don't feel pain, so police shouldn't carry tasers.

Have you ever worked any job with annual training schedules? Government, EMS, Police, even OSHA shit. Ask any of those people if "80 hours more training a year is going to help them".

There's already such a load of annual bullshit on all of those positions that people are largely doing the bare minimum to get past them. Blame HR and health and safety as well as gov't regulations, but if you think anyone has time to put 80 or 100 hours of training into something else a year is NBD, you're going to have to hire someone else to do the job they are no longer able to do. Not only that, but deal with a reduction of 10% of their force to cover the increased cost of training, because SUUUUUURe, right now voters are going to approve giving police mo'money.

TRAINING is not the issue. You can train someone for 8 straight years, get them a PHD, and a percentage of them will still be malicious assholes with an ego that occasionally get someone killed. You can't fix the core personality issues at the root of the problem with "training". There's little doubt that the involved officer knew he shouldn't be putting a lot of weight on someones neck for 8+ minutes. He was most likely largely just being a dick because bystanders asked him to stop... HES THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SCREW THOSE GUYS. He already knew it could result in asphyxiation. Training doesn't fix that attitude problem.
06-02-2020, 16:56
Bailey Guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

The misunderstanding seems to be on your end. It feels like you are thinking that because I made a suggestion, that I think it's THE solution to fix everything. I never made any such claim. As Gman already pointed out, Jiu jitsu training wouldn't have even solved the issue that started this whole debate. The guy in question was already subdued, yet the police officer elected to keep his knee on that guys throat until he was dead. That isn't a training issue, it's a character one, that likely couldn't be trained out of that individual anyway.

Back to the argument about training though, the only issue I see with my statement is that I said it should be required. VDW is correct, that would be difficult. It wouldn't HAVE to be a burden on the department though. People could seek their own training outside of the department. I'd actually encourage that. Any officer that takes their job, and their own personal safety seriously at all, would seek out additional training beyond the laughable amount provided by the department in the first place. Like in any other profession, most people wouldn't unless they are required. That goes for me to. I don't train in Jiu jitsu. I should, but I don't, and I don't even have a good reason not to.

To sum things up, the argument that officers shouldn't get additional combat training because fighting is hard and people do drugs is so stupid that I won't even bother to address it again. Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because it won't help me in a head on with a semi-truck at highway speeds?

I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say. It appears to me you don't understand what I'm trying to say. And your sentence in bold sums nothing up...correctly, anyway. Have a nice night. I need to go find a softer wall to beat my head against.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page