State trooper ambushed and shot during dui stop

imported post

FMCDH, you are absolutely right that I am not taking into account the intentionality factor, but I'm not sure that's relevant to my point. I was actually operating under the somewhat simpler concept "Dead is Dead".

And the point is, when your friendly local crab fisherman heads off to work, the chances of him not coming back is much higher than it is for our LEO's. How is that not relevant?

imported post

This is exactly why I started carrying. We respond to police impounds and sometimes are left on scene while, WSP, GHSD, and OSPD, take off to finish their arrest. I went on a call one morning around 2 am, WSP called me out to tow an impound. I pulled up, signed the impound sheet and the Stater said "I got the driver, but the passenger got away on foot. I need to get going,yYou gonna be OK"? I told him yeah, but the whole time hooking up, I heard every little crunch and crackle, coming from the woods. I wouldnt normally care, but that morning I was extremely tired, and took off with my pistol in the safe. Never again after that, Younever know.

imported post

PolskiG had a bad experience with cops recently. Maybe that's playing a role in his current feelings toward police in general. It can be very difficult to maintain objectivity in certain circumstances. I have noticed in my own life that before I openly carried a pistol, I had no trouble with cops. Now since I started to OC I've had frequent, in comparison, incidents of attempted bullying. It's difficult to respect someone who is supposed to uphold the law but chooses instead to use his authority as a medium for harassment.

MD

imported post

kparker wrote:

FMCDH, you are absolutely right that I am not taking into account the intentionality factor, but I'm not sure that's relevant to my point. I was actually operating under the somewhat simpler concept "Dead is Dead".

And the point is, when your friendly local crab fisherman heads off to work, the chances of him not coming back is much higher than it is for our LEO's. How is that not relevant?

Click to expand...

Because your equating the risks of "putting ones life on the line" primarily for others as being the same as putting ones life on the line primarily for ones own pocket book.

As already stated by another, people generally don't get into law enforcement jobs for the benefit of the money. Some may get into law enforcement for the benefit of their own ego, but that's an irrelevant sub-culture.

When police officers on average start making even close to the equivalent compensation as a novice crabber or fisherman can make (about 20,000 for three - five weeks work) than your comparison may become relevant.

As it is, your average patrol officer makes about 40,000 - 60,000 a year considering all annual benefits and assuming about 5-10 years of experience.

I see it as a comparison of the inherent and mitigate-able risks verses the possible payoffs of a profession. And I just don't see the LEO profession as having many more mitigate-able risks that don't directly and possibly negatively effect our own lives and liberties.

Personally, I would be happy to pay a little more for crab, fish or a new house if it means less people have to die to get them for me.

Are you willing to give up more of your own personal liberties to make a police officers job safer?

I'm not. I would rather just give those who do the job the little extra respect and support they deserve for doing the job that I ask of them.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

kparker wrote:

FMCDH, you are absolutely right that I am not taking into account the intentionality factor, but I'm not sure that's relevant to my point. I was actually operating under the somewhat simpler concept "Dead is Dead".

And the point is, when your friendly local crab fisherman heads off to work, the chances of him not coming back is much higher than it is for our LEO's. How is that not relevant?

Click to expand...

Because your equating the risks of "putting ones life on the line" primarily for others as being the same as putting ones life on the line primarily for ones own pocket book.

As already stated by another, people generally don't get into law enforcement jobs for the benefit of the money. Some may get into law enforcement for the benefit of their own ego, but that's an irrelevant sub-culture.

When police officers on average start making even close to the equivalent compensation as a novice crabber or fisherman can make (about 20,000 for three - five weeks work) than your comparison may become relevant.

As it is, your average patrol officer makes about 40,000 - 60,000 a year considering all annual benefits and assuming about 5-10 years of experience.

I see it as a comparison of the inherent and mitigate-able risks verses the possible payoffs of a profession. And I just don't see the LEO profession as having many more mitigate-able risks that don't directly and possibly negatively effect our own lives and liberties.

Personally, I would be happy to pay a little more for crab, fish or a new house if it means less people have to die to get them for me.

Are you willing to give up more of your own personal liberties to make a police officers job safer?

I'm not. I would rather just give those who do the job the little extra respect and support they deserve for doing the job that I ask of them.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but most leo's are adrenalin junkies. They go into this line of work primarily for the rush. They tend to use the "helping the public" line to camouflage the fact that it is the rush they are looking for. Sure some of their work is boring and routine but it is the prospect of conflict that keeps them showing up for work. I've known a number of leo's over the years and the do gooder variety are exceptionally rare. The vast majority of leo's fall into the same category as base jumpers, Nascar drivers and other rush seekers. They are very similar to fire fighters as they both prefer the ultimate risk taking. One that can take their life. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but be realistic about why they serve. When a leo is killed in the line of duty it is a shock to most in the civilian community because the leo's are assumed to be the badest, toughest guys and gals on the block. While this may be true in alot of cases it is not always true. As it was in the old west the personality type that become leo's could just as easily become criminals. Many here will disagree with what I've said and that is fine however remember why we have this board and remember the multiple reports of leo's looking for conflict where there should be none. Societies around the world have historically done their best to recruit potential bad guys into law enforcement to offset the criminal elements that naturally exist. The problem those societies then face is keeping the leo's from trampling on the citizens rights while still being willing to go one on one with the "bad" guys. Is it a tragedy when an leo is killed in the line of duty? For their families yes but no more so than the fireman's family or for that matter any other family. Should we respect the leo's and the function they perform? Yes I believe so, however, we must remember that they are just men and women fulfilling a function that they are well suited to fulfill and that due to their aggressive nature they must be watched very closely to keep them from crossing the line.

imported post

Why does it matter why someone does the job they do? All that matters is they were offered money to do a job and they accepted it. That is their sole compensation - they don't get to lord it over the common citizen, they don't *inherently merit* more respect than anyone else, and they have NO MORE RIGHTS than everyone else.

On the other hand, I am glad some people choose to accept the job, as the police do perform a valuable service. Still, so do construction workers, grocery baggers, and teachers.

I'm not going to put someone up on a pedestal because they chose law enforcement over any other money-making profession, and treating officers' lives as more valuable than those of everyone else feels... wrong.

imported post

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

PolskiG wrote:

Cops are not heroes, their just people making a living, like everyone else.  

Click to expand...

With the single exception that cops put their lives on the line each and every day, to protect you and your family's way of life.  No offense, but why would you post something like this on a forum where many of us have close friends that are law enforcement? What do you hope to gain from saying such things?

I, for one, support law enforcement, and gave my "gun money fund" from the couple of months prior to the Lakewood shooting to the fund. I don't miss that money at all, considering the three LPD officers that I know personally are still on the job.

-G20

Click to expand...

Too bad that, with just about any major city you care to look at, the homicide rate per capita for average citizens is higher than the fatality rate (including accidents) for LEOs.

Statistically, we have the far more dangerous job. We live on the streets they "patrol" for a mere 8 hours a day, and then get to go home to their nice houses in gated communities they can afford on their bloated salaries.

imported post

virgil47

I am sorry but most leo's are adrenalin junkies. They go into this line of work primarily for the rush. They tend to use the "helping the public" line to camouflage the fact that it is the rush they are looking for.

Click to expand...

Exactly how many officers do you know on a personal level?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

PolskiG wrote:

Cops are not heroes, their just people making a living, like everyone else.  

Click to expand...

With the single exception that cops put their lives on the line each and every day, to protect you and your family's way of life.  No offense, but why would you post something like this on a forum where many of us have close friends that are law enforcement? What do you hope to gain from saying such things?

I, for one, support law enforcement, and gave my "gun money fund" from the couple of months prior to the Lakewood shooting to the fund. I don't miss that money at all, considering the three LPD officers that I know personally are still on the job.

-G20

Click to expand...

Too bad that, with just about any major city you care to look at, the homicide rate per capita for average citizens is higher than the fatality rate (including accidents) for LEOs.

Statistically, we have the far more dangerous job. We live on the streets they "patrol" for a mere 8 hours a day, and then get to go home to their nice houses in gated communities they can afford on their bloated salaries.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that any SFPD patrolman live in Presidio Terrace on their supposed bloated salary.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

As it is, your average patrol officer makes about 40,000 - 60,000 a year considering all annual benefits and assuming about 5-10 years of experience.

Click to expand...

LOL! It's funny how deluded the average police-apologist is.

Try, 70,000 + overtime and other benefits, starting:

http://www.opdjobs.com/

Starting salaries are among the highest in the state - over $70k + rich benefits package.

Click to expand...

Oakland is hardly unique. They pay ever so slightly more, but remember the market forces of supply and demand. It follows that their pay is not out of line with the average LEO pay. It has to follow.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

With all due respect, and statistics not withstanding, you are not taking into account the causation of fatalities.

There is a significant difference between fatalities that are due to the natural risk prone environment that steel workers, fishermen and construction workers place themselves in by their own (or their industries) poor safety practices while pushing for ever greater profit, and that of the induced risks placed upon LEOs by virtue of the requirements of their civil office and the totality of their duties.

Your comparing apples to oranges.

Click to expand...

You're right. Let's try to skew things in favor of cops, then, eh?

Let's compare homicides of average citizens to fatalities of any sort of police. This way, we're not inflating the rates of average citizens with on-the-job hazards, but we're letting the police count every death they suffer -- whether intentional or accidental.

Let's do Philly, since I happen to have the numbers handy:

The PPD employs 6,600 officers, according to their website. One death in 2009 is equivalent to around 15 deaths per 100,000 per year.

The city itself holds 1.54 million people. In 2008, 334 of them were killed by an act of homicide. This is equivalent to around 21 homicides per 100,000 per year.

Clearly, Philadelphia residents are killed at higher rates than are PPD Officers.

ETA: In 2008 four PPD officers were killed in the line of duty. This does make the rate significantly higher for that year, of course, but this number is way out of line with the years immediately prior and subsequent. Most years, the PPD loses 1 officer per year, if that. Taken as aggregate over several years, and compared to the aggregate rate of citizen homicides over a similar period, the rate is extremely low. There are several years with no killed officers which easily make up for 2008's exceptional rate. No corresponding years with no killed citizens, however. :?

When using just a single year's worth of data, the two years I have chosen (2009 for the PPD and 2008 for citizen homicides) make for better comparison than comparing 2008 to 2008, as the rates in both cases are representative of the average, whereas in 2008 the PPD suffered far more casualties than they have in any other year for over a decade.

Click to expand...

You're right, of course. If we were to compare apples to apples, the rates for police would come out much lower in comparison.

In fact, they need to count every single death, including traffic accidents, to even make it on the radar (with the mysterious exception of 2008. They had a bad year. I wonder what happened?) compared to the number of citizens killed while under their so-called "protection"!

imported post

marshaul wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

As it is, your average patrol officer makes about 40,000 - 60,000 a year considering all annual benefits and assuming about 5-10 years of experience.

Click to expand...

LOL! It's funny how deluded the average police-apologist is.

Try, 70,000 + overtime and other benefits, starting:

http://www.opdjobs.com/

Starting salaries are among the highest in the state - over $70k + rich benefits package.

Click to expand...

Oakland is hardly unique. They pay ever so slightly more, but remember the market forces of supply and demand. It follows that their pay is not out of line with the average LEO pay. It has to follow.

Click to expand...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_annual_income_for_Police_Officers

imported post

I highly doubt that number has been accurate for over a decade. I don't see a citation in that answer, I notice. I provided direct reference, on the other hand.

Which is the more credible source?

I am disinterested. Police and their apologists, on the other hand, have incentive to always act underpaid (just like teachers do): PAY RAISES!

Key word: "among".

imported post

marshaul wrote:

You're right. Let's try to skew things in favor of cops, then, eh?

Let's compare homicides of average citizens to fatalities of any sort of police. This way, we're not inflating the rates of average citizens with on-the-job hazards, but we're letting the police count every death they suffer -- whether intentional or accidental.

Click to expand...

Being an average citizen is not a profession.

I don't disagree at all that police officers have it in their favor overall on a "daily life" basis of being protected. Being a police officer certainly comes with its perks in daily life over that of the "average citizen", a situation I don't agree with.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

marshaul wrote:

You're right. Let's try to skew things in favor of cops, then, eh?

Let's compare homicides of average citizens to fatalities of any sort of police. This way, we're not inflating the rates of average citizens with on-the-job hazards, but we're letting the police count every death they suffer -- whether intentional or accidental.

Click to expand...

Being an average citizen is not a profession.

I don't disagree at all that police officers have it in their favor overall on a "daily life" basis of being protected. Being a police officer certainly comes with its perks in daily life over that of the "average citizen", a situation I don't agree with.

Click to expand...

Well, we do agree then on the impropriety of special privileges and perks for any particular group of citizens.

And, no, being a citizen is not a profession, which is why I didn't look at on-the-job fatalities, but rather homicides, which are something we are all at some risk of.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I highly doubt that number has been accurate for over a decade. I don't see a citation in that answer, I notice. I provided direct reference, on the other hand.

Which is the more credible source?

I am disinterested. Police and their apologists, on the other hand, have incentive to always act underpaid (just like teachers do): PAY RAISES!

Key word: "among".

Click to expand...

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-police

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Police-Officer.html

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_LG12000003.html

http://www.policejobsinfo.com/salaries/

http://www.policeofficersteps.com/average-police-officer-salary.php

Shall I continue?

That's just a few of the first 5 from a google search.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

marshaul wrote:

You're right. Let's try to skew things in favor of cops, then, eh?

Let's compare homicides of average citizens to fatalities of any sort of police. This way, we're not inflating the rates of average citizens with on-the-job hazards, but we're letting the police count every death they suffer -- whether intentional or accidental.

Click to expand...

Being an average citizen is not a profession.

I don't disagree at all that police officers have it in their favor overall on a "daily life" basis of being protected. Being a police officer certainly comes with its perks in daily life over that of the "average citizen", a situation I don't agree with.

Click to expand...

Well, we do agree then on the impropriety of special privileges and perks for any particular group of citizens.

...

Click to expand...

Yes, we do.

imported post

Police officers are certainly well paid in Washington, at least, in comparison to what I make as an E-5.

Washington has never really had troubles recruiting and retaining in that department.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/employment/index.htm

Interesting info.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

Interesting info.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I might apply if I weren't so preoccupied with my own life. I still haven't found what I want and a Patrolman might be my ideal job. Then again I don't like talking to Police. Maybe it's a conflict of interest. I'm alreadytorn.:?

Err...Anyway why are we having so many LEOs killed lately? This needs to stop.

imported post

I'm sure it depends massively on where you're looking at.

My initial comment may have been slightly unfair; all I know is, every time I drive around Oakland and see banners advertising 70k+ with benefits starting, I get heated.

Then again, Oakland is a special case. There is probably nowhere in America less possessing of the self-reliance mentality. I think even San Franciscans are more serious about self-defense than over in Oakland. They rely on police like nowhere else. :uhoh: