State trooper ambushed and shot during dui stop

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...

Police officers are average citizens. Perhaps he should have said "Let's compare homicides of all other professions to those of police officers".

imported post

marshaul wrote:

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:

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Is $70,000 really that high of an income in that area of Ca.? I know in Wa., regardless of the area, it is a fairly high wage. Our officers start at between $40k - $55k.

imported post

antispam540 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...

Police officers are average citizens.  Perhaps he should have said "Let's compare homicides of all other professions to those of police officers".

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the general public does not see it this way. A cop is always a cop to almost everyone but cops. Even the cities, counties, and states look at them as they are always cops, some have policies that dictate the carrying of their issued service pistol at anytime they are inside the jurisdictional limits of their employer.

When we can get away from this mentality then and only then will it become just another profession.

I do agree that it is simply a profession, I come from a huge LEO family, so I look at it differently then the average joe.

imported post

PolskiG wrote:

Why not start a fund for the guy who makes ten dollars an hour and gets killed because some cops had an itchy trigger finger?

Click to expand...

That's a great idea. Next time this occurs can we count on you for the first donation?

imported post

joeroket wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

Over the years I have known over a dozen full time committed police officers. I'm still aquainted with a few but not as closely as in the past. My remarks about leo's being adrenaline junkies still stands. The vast majority of leo's are very aggressive and at times actually look forward to confrontations. Being agressive in the performance of their jobs is a good quality but looking for confrontations is not.

imported post

virgil47 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

Over the years I have known over a dozen full time committed police officers. I'm still aquainted with a few but not as closely as in the past. My remarks about leo's being adrenaline junkies still stands. The vast majority of leo's are very aggressive and at times actually look forward to confrontations. Being agressive in the performance of their jobs is a good quality but looking for confrontations is not.

Click to expand...

I have known well over a hundred in my life and disagree with you. It may be because I was "family" but knowing them in a personal capacity I found that a very small percentage are as you describe.

imported post

I saw studies on the type of people who are attracted to LEO jobs, I wish I could find the source but the scientist were calling it the T-gene. T for thrill, many firemen, police, extreme sports, and criminals have this in common.

If I remember right it was a study about how criminals can't help being criminals it's not a choice but genetic. Well they found out it was a choice because the same traits and areas of the brain that made criminals do what they do are also very common in police and firemen and other adrenaline junkies or thrill seekers. It is more subdued in some than others, but it is what would cause a police officer or fireman to risk his life to save someone else's.

This doesn't mean that if you meet someone in person you are going to tell right away they are a thrill or adrenaline junkie. Just like you can't always tell who's alcoholic or a drug addict. It doesn't mean all police are adrenaline junkies, but this profession attracts a lot more than many other professions. Because of the inherit risk.

Police know the risk and contrary to popular opinion they do get paid well. Even if it is just 40k a year. That is better than a lot of people can do, with or without a college education. They get awesome benefits a strong union that makes it hard to fire bad ones etc. and a society that holds them up on a pedestal as our "protectors" where that rarely is the case, they usually come in after the fact. They spend the majority of their time as revenue collectors for the , city, state, county.

I am not anti LEO, but do feel we can do with a lot less than we have and need to change the public's viewpoint and the LEO's viewpoint of their role in our society.

An interesting link: http://www.crimetimes.org/96a/w96ap6.htm

imported post

Well, SVG, if you really feel that way, the next time you need help, and I hope that you never do, call your anti gun neighbor instead.

imported post

I think SVG is right on target but the studies are probably like most and exaggerated. To be a LEO does take a person with different atributes than most jobs and does have to be someone who likes thrills and excitement. Everytime a LEO stops someone for speeding there is the chance that it could also be a someone ready for some real excitement. Quite often you read about a drug bust or something similar that started as a routine traffic stop. Watch the police videos on TV where they try to stop someone for speeding and it turns into a cross country chase. Also think about how that person has caused wrecks, may have well injured people, led the police on a 30 miles chase on public roads etc. then when they finally get him stopped could you keep yourself from beating the #### out of him and simply read him his rights and treat him like a jaywalker. I doubt that I could and for the LEO to do it takes someone different than I am.

The study says that firemen, policmen, robbers and adrenaline junkies are the same but tjust focus it in different ways. There may be something to that but I can't just lump them in the same boat based on one thing. Ask yourself, could you stand up there and have someone spit in your face, cuss you out, threaten to rape and kill your family just for starters then ask them politely to put their hands behind their back so you can handcuff them. I doubt that very many of you could and that is what we expect of a LEO. I don't put LEO on a pedestal but I don't want their job.

imported post

Trigger sorry if I offended you. That isn't my intent

Of course even though I pointed out I am not anti LEO that part was missed.

Like Deputy Chief Doll of Bellingham police told me "No one held a gun to our head and made us choose this job."

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

Well, SVG, if you really feel that way, the next time you need help, and I hope that you never do, call your anti gun neighbor instead.

Click to expand...

Honestly, with response times the way they are, that might not be a bad idea...

imported post

I armed my neighbor. It's true with response time usually what was going to happen has happened by the time LEO show up.

I am on blackberry and realized the topic of this thread just now.

I am devastated another officer was targeted in our state and my thiughts and condolences go out to his family for their loss.

imported post

Way back, 1971,when I was going to college and taking Psycology I did a paperon Law EnforcmentOfficers. The studys at the time indicated that LEOs tended to beagressive, controlling andrisk takers.Most were drawn to Law Enforcement because it fulfilled their needs not because they wanted to help society. The irony of it is that people with out those traits make pretty poor LEOs.

All of that being said I would not want the job and my hat goes off to anyone that does the job. However I have zero tolerance for LEOs that use their authority to intimidate or violate citizens rights.

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

Trigger Dr wrote:

Well, SVG, if you really feel that way, the next time you need help, and I hope that you never do, call your anti gun neighbor instead.

Click to expand...

Honestly, with response times the way they are, that might not be a bad idea...

Click to expand...

+1

I'd trust my anti-gun neighbor to help more than I'd trust or rely on police. My experience has shown this to be the wiser tack.

imported post

Orphan wrote:

However I have zero tolerance for LEOs that use their authority to intimidate or violate citizens rights.

Click to expand...

Now, if only we could get the courts to follow suit...

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I saw studies on the type of people who are attracted to LEO jobs, I wish I could find the source but the scientist were calling it the T-gene. T for thrill, many firemen, police, extreme sports, and criminals have this in common.

Police know the risk and contrary to popular opinion they do get paid well. Even if it is just 40k a year. That is better than a lot of people can do, with or without a college education. They get awesome benefits a strong union that makes it hard to fire bad ones etc. and a society that holds them up on a pedestal as our "protectors" where that rarely is the case, they usually come in after the fact. They spend the majority of their time as revenue collectors for the , city, state, county.

I am not anti LEO, but do feel we can do with a lot less than we have and need to change the public's viewpoint and the LEO's viewpoint of their role in our society.

Click to expand...

You bring up some interesting points SVG. I've never heard of the "t gene" but it does make some sense. I often get asked by interested people about how you
become a Cop. They typically ask if they should take law classes or similar courses, and I tell them no. I (or any experienced Officer) can tell in less than a minute if a person is a real candidate or not. There is something that you either have inside you or you don't, and itCANNOT be taught or learned. Maybe this is the t gene, but whatever it is it is almost instantly apparent as to whether one has it, and could dothe job. Just because many don't have it, does not make them a lesser person. It simply means that they are not cut out to be a Cop.

It is true thatPolice (around here) are well paid, but that is definetly not why one does the job. I know many Cops, and I would classify very few asadrenaline junkies. It is more a strong moral compass that you can't help but follow. Being able to actually do something to stop crime, take down a bad guy, or save a life,is very gratifying at the end of the day. Many jobs don't offer any type of gratification, and we have all had one or more of those, and trudged alongwithout any feeling of purpose.

In my opinionGrossman's sheep, wolf, and sheepdog analogy is right on the money. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a sheep, but I also believe that many sheep like to try and disguise/proclaimthemselves as sheepdog. They mayfool some but not all, as you eitherhave it inside you or you don't, and like fear, there are those that can sense it. Ifyou look deep inside yourself, you will know what you truly are, and where you fit in.

No one I know ever became a Cop to be a hero.That is just a label that the sheep place onsheepdogs, for doing things that they themselves are too afraid to ever do.For a sheepdog it is simply instinctual, and already built into them.They don't contemplate whether or not to act, but ratherhow they will act.

Which way willyou run whenyou hear the sound of gunfire?

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

In my opinion Grossman's sheep, wolf, and sheepdog analogy is right on the money.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, in your mind.

Your profession generally self-defines based upon this rhetoric. You are essentially a professional shill for this notion. No offense and all that.

I reject it. There is no animal analog to the free, self-sovereign citizen, Homo sapiens.

I am not a sheep, for I do not need sheepdogs to protect me. Nor is it my responsibility to protect other sheep, so I cannot be a sheepdog. Nor am I a wolf, as a follower of the NAP.

There may be those who self-identify as a sheepdog (there are), and there may be those who seem very sheep-like (there are), but it is a mistake to lump all of humanity into one of these categories.

If this is the most we may become, I fear liberty is not within our reach. If a citizen must be either a submitizen (sheep), or the bearer of a mentality which can only be described as proto-statist (sheepdog), what room is there for a citizen to become empowered and free, neither reliant on others for protection nor employed in the act of providing protection?

imported post

Good post Johny and glad someone from the LEO side saw that I didn't mean it as an attack.

It's like engineers most of them I have dealt with and I have dealt with many are A-type or anal personalities if you will, but I wouldn't have it any other way in that profession.There are always the exception to the rule but certain personalities are attracted to certain professions.

I wouldn't want an officer who is afraid to jump into the mix when the need arises.

imported post

marshaul wrote:[/quote]
If a citizen must be either a submitizen...... [/quote]

A submitizen....that's one I'll have to remember. That's becoming more the norm every day, it seems.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

In my opinionGrossman's sheep, wolf, and sheepdog analogy is right on the money.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, in your mind.

Your profession generally self-defines based upon this rhetoric. You are essentially a professional shill for this notion. No offense and all that.

I reject it. There is no animal analog to the free, self-sovereign citizen, Homo sapiens.

I am not a sheep, for I do not need sheepdogs to protect me. Nor is it my responsibility to protect other sheep, so I cannot be a sheepdog. Nor am I a wolf, as a follower of the NAP.

If this is the most we may become, I fear liberty is not within our reach. If a citizen must be either a submitizen (sheep), or the bearer of a mentality which can only be described as proto-statist (sheepdog), what room is there for a citizen to become empowered and free, neither reliant on others for protection nor employed in the act of providing protection?

Click to expand...

I think if you ask the average guy about sheepdogs, they would probably say it was military andlaw enforcement, butI don't define it as such. Anyone who feels the moral compulsion to act selflessly on behalf of his fellow man is a sheepdog in my book. I have seen citizens rise to the occasion several times, and help Officers chase down/capture a criminal. I always thank them, as they certainly had no obligation to get involved, but they were the fewwhofeltcompelled to do what was right, even ifthey jeopardized themselves in the process. Granted, it doesn't happen very often and I am still surprised when it does, but it is an admirable quality to me.

All animals, including sheep will do something to protect THEMSELVES if they are attacked, be it run away or whatever, and we all know the sheepdogs are few and scattered thin.

I don't know if you read the local thread about the girl who was attacked/kicked in the head in the tunnel in Seattle, but this is right in this same line of thinking. Everyone who witnessed that event was a sheep, including the security guards. All were too afraid to step in and stop a teenage girl from potentially harming or killing another (kicks to the head are considered lethal force).

About a year ago I was driving through a shopping center parking lot (off duty), and saw 2 menfighting outside a business.One was lying on the pavement, and the other was standing over him, giving him fullforce kicks to the head. I was out of the car yelling and running at the guy in seconds, and when he saw me coming at him, he ran away. I chased him down, tackled, and detained him until uniformed Officers arrived. I could have certainly pulled out my gun, but didn't feel the need to do so at that time.

Had it been your daughter, spouse, or even yourself down on the ground, would you not havehoped that someone would step in andhelp? If you would not have gotten involved and tried to stopa person from beingseriously injured or killedin either of these two incidents, then you are a SHEEP. There is no shame in being a sheep. The vast majority of our society are sheep, and are good honest hardworking people. They are no less relevant than anyone else, butthey are notwarriors, andthey will nottake a riskto help someone they don't know, becausefearcontrols them.

It's not about occupation, it's about the mettle ofeach of us as anindividual.