So, I just got my test results in the mail for NYPD and I did pretty damned well, will probably be getting called in for the interview and such within a few months. I'm pretty stoked.
Can we discuss all things LEO?
Also: NYPD Officers get to choose from 3 sidearms to carry on duty, and several to carry off duty. The choices are
Sig Sauer P226 DAO
Smith & Wesson 5946
Smith & Wesson 3914 DAO
Smith & Wesson Model 640 in .38
Sig Sauer P239
Beretta 8000D Mini Cougar
The On Duty firearms are all 9mm with a 12lb NY-2 Trigger.
I'm planning to go with the Sig P226 for On Duty, and I'm still undecided about the off duty, thoughts?
For mags and ammo commonality the only factually correct answer is G19 and G26. 12lb trigger is ridiculous, though.
Have fun enforcing lots of BS laws though. Just remember "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't work for you after The Happening.
Can we get an elaboration on that, or is this just "They have guns, Europeons don't, Europeons are better" thing? Cities like NYC, Jersey City, Newark Boston and others have pretty good police, and especially good SWAT/ESU/SOG teams.
NYPD has a really bad track record of missing people they are shooting at and instead hitting or killing innocent people. NYPD mostly enforces drug laws which we all know are wrong.
Having grown up and lived my entire life in North Jersey, I can adamantly say that while I disagree with the prohibition of Marijuana, I do firmly believe that anyone dealing heroin needs to be put away for life. It's absolutely fucking horrible.
>Training is too short
>Way too trigger happy
>Killshots when disabling ones are viable without any actual risk to the officer
In general the occupation of a police officer is supposed to be a service one, but it really doesn't seem like that in the US.
Naturally I understand the difference with all the nigger gangbangers in the US and the far greater danger to officers, but exactly because of that their training should be superior, but it isn't.
I just hate how anybody that doesn't immediately comply or has a weapon usually ends up getting shot.
Like when a tweaker doesn't drop the knife they light him up. Wtf happened to your tazer, mace, or baton.
Guns are a different story of course. But I don't believe it's fair that a few months of training means you can go around putting guns in people's faces but if someone pulls a gun on a cop they'd get shot.
It should be stricter ROE's. For example: police can't fire till fired upon. It's their fucking job to put themselves in danger and risk their lives. most have bullet proof vests too.
found a old reddit ama of a NYPD gonna post the bullet points of its OP here
>Every officer hired since the introduction of pistols in the NYPD back in the early nineties is NOT allowed to use a revolver as their service weapon. They must choose between a Glock 19, S&amp;amp;amp;amp;W 5946, or a Sig p226. All of these guns are in DAO variant and have NO external safety.
>Everyone who is allowed to carry a gun in the department (not everyone is) has to re-qualify once every six months (give or take, it's been as short as five and as long as nine sometimes).
>MOST NYPD officers fire their FIRST gun, ever in their entire lives, at the police academy, some as young as 21 to as old as 35 shooting for their very first time, and on a DAO pistol.
>The qualifications are HORRIBLE mad get dumbed down every year.
>The NYPD offers once a month training for members to use, on their own time. However, all that is done during these sessions are the same basic dumbed down qualification exercises. You will only receive real help if you outright fail. Missed 12 out of fifty @ 7 yards? GOOD ENOUGH!
>Our tactical training is a joke and maybe ten people in a department of 34K have had Active Shooter training (I'm not exaggerating).
>Some of our members NEVER take their service weapons out of their gun belts, and never carry ANYTHING off duty. I've seen people with 3 years on have brown rusted rear sights. Some never clean their weapons unless forced to by the firearms unit.
>The NYPD has been tight fisted with ammo for the longest time. Take your one box and be happy.
>Our holsters are shit also.
>It's true, twelve pins trigger springs suck
>We at only allowed Gen3 Glocks.
Awwwww, sweety. Come cuddle me and I'll dry your tears.
No one gives a flying fuck about your stupid dog.
>muh he's a member of the family
>muh unconditional love
You have a mental illness.
I've been thinking of joining the FBI, criminal investigations. I like the idea of being an investigator/detective, but traveling around the country, maybe out of the country. But all of my teachers (ex-LEO) say that the FBI are a) lawyers with guns, and b) a bunch of pricks who just do what they want and shit on local law enforcement.
So I'm curious as to what our /k/ops think of the FBI, and any experiences they've had working with them.
Funny because I'm in law school and they basically tell us that "haha yeah fucking right Mr. FBI, good luck getting that job if you're not an ex-special forces ultra high speed operator with 3 Ph.Ds and fluent in 15 languages."
I would still go for it if I didn't have a wife and kids. I don't want to just uproot them and shit so... boring-ass lawyer job for me.
Ow the edge.
I hate seeing shit like this because I dont think anyone should hurt animals and this nigger sounds like that one kid that used to kill lizards as a child. You're not cool or edgy just a bitch virgin that people would not touch with a 10 foot pole because youre fucking insane
>inb4 animal gore
>inb4 "liking anything but yourself is mental illness and degeneracy!"
>Killshots when disabling ones are viable without any actual risk to the officer
firearms are lethal weapons and should only be used as such
trying feel-good shoot to wound bullshit is only going to cause unnecessary suffering and greater risk to officers and the community
I would honestly not get the Glock because of retarded NY triggers. Still, if they are retarded enough to want the P226 DAO, instead of DA/SA you have no hope of something with a pleasant trigger. Even if Sigs are practically the gold standard for nice DA triggers
OP here, I was a CJ student, I've been involved in public service (EMS), work with police daily, and a lot of my family is public service (Mostly police).
The FBI pisses off all municipal PDs, especially in the big cities, because the FBI often has the upper-middle level drug dealers as "informants" and completely cockblocks prosecution of crimes that the PDs have legitimately busted them on. They also tend to overstep their jurisdictions but because they're federal, they get away with it (Feds can threaten death penalty, NYC DA's cannot). The job is a pretty sweet deal, all things considered, but if you have a healthy respect for city/state independence from the feds, you're gonna hate the job fast.
Reduces risk of accidental shootings and NDs, there's no safety on department issued guns.
That's...Weird that they tell you that. The FBI -loves- lawyers, it's easier to teach a lawyer to be a cop than teaching a cop to be a lawyer.
Additionally, if you join any federal agency, they have to pay to move you and your family, and it costs a lot to do that, if you live in a City or within whatever arbitrary distance they set to a City, they'll probably never move you. Too expensive, and no real gain. Especially if you're a fresh agent. You will have to go to Quantico to train though.
Met a lot of FBI, DEA, DOJ, DHS, etc etc guys through my school's CJ program.
There isn't a single American LEA that teaches "disabling shots". We teach the continuum of force. If a situation calls for lethal force, you fucking use lethal force. Disabling shots are a load of bullshit.
I need to ask, do you live in America?
Additionally, to your tweaker with a knife comment. I believe it's within 7 yards, or 21 feet..If a Police Officer were to have to draw his gun, aim and fire, the tweaker with the knife would have covered 21 feet in that time and been able to stab him. That's why. If you draw your taser and the dude is too whacked out on Meth to be effected by it, by the time you dropped/put your taser away and went for your pistol you'd be dead. Same with baton. Knife>Baton, you never go -lower- than what the suspect has, you attempt to go with equal force. A knife is lethal force, so you go to a gun.
Simplest solution, don't fucking attack police officers, it's so simple it hurts.
See, I'm in ADJ, and I'd hate to be a lawyer. There's too much sitting around and lying to people. I want just want to investigate violent crime and help to upkeep justice in our country (that sounds really faggy, but it's important to me). So the FBI, as it is advertised by the government, sounds perfect. But from what I've been hearing, it's completely different from what I thought.
Consider US Marshals if you want to work at a federal level and deal with violent crimes. The FBI largely either delegates municipal departments, undermines investigations, or handles monetary crimes. They've become a sort of political police sometime in the last 10 years, which has reduced them to extreme levels of "Nobody does what they say".
Because liberals think that all white police officers are racists who exist only to target "unarmed black teens", and the /k/-/pol/ relationship has led to most people thinking the police are filled with statist, gungrabbing, innocent shooting neanderthals with no ties to their local community.
All of this is of course enabled by a media with an extremely anti-police view.
I'm not saying all cops are saints, or that there aren't policies that exist across the country that need to be looked at, but even the suburban "do nothing" cops do a lot more than people realize. Being in EMS has really let me see that.
Hardly any focus on de-escalation.
Paranoid nature (either due to America or training) means reaching for weapon happens way earlier than is necessary.
Investigations are performed internally rather than neutral 3rd party agency, no transparency = no accountability.
Fitness requirements are a joke. I see morbidly obese cops all the damn time.
Hardly any training on dealing with people with mental health issues or those under the influence. See "too eager to reach for weapons", above.
I could go on.
Same here but I basically missed the boat and have no federal experience (as far as internships, etc.) so... I would rather be bored with a happy family then work for the FBI and have a stressed out, unhappy family. I'll make a little more money anyway so... I guess that helps a little.
But obviously if I cared about the money I wouldn't even ever think about joining the FBI.
Is it the FBI's protocol that indirectly fucks over PD's, or are FBI agents just haughty? I see no reason why FBI agents can't work with local, and if I were an agent, I'd want to work with sheriffs and police, since they know more about the area and the people.
My criminal investigations teacher (old sheriff) told me about a time when the FBI came over to our county to investigate drug crime at our local reservation, and were going to raid a private residence via a back road. Well on the route the FBI planned out, there's a cliff where the road that they were going to follow turns into a turnout. It's about a 10-15 foot drop, and the FBI were planning on speeding over it unknowingly. So my teacher speaks up, says, "Can I be excused from this case? I don't want to die." He had to guard the road that night, and has had a cold shoulder over FBI ever since.
Because de-escalation puts the officer and the general public at risk. There is actually a ton of focus on de-escalation, but it almost never works. People who are violent generally are committed to it, and view the police as an oppressive authority that wants to imprison them.
Paranoid nature I would chalk up to a sizable subculture within America (Gang culture) that glorifies violence against the police and actively encourages it.
Plenty of large departments have third party investigations, but internal affairs is a far better alternative for smaller matters, and for handling police-involved shootings. It's very expensive to have a 3rd party agency investigate, there is no unlimited budget for law enforcement.
Fitness requirements are done at the entry level, and most departments do not retest. Budget concerns are one reason, attrition is another. Additionally, you spend 8 or 12 hours a day sitting in a patrol car and tell me how great of shape you're in.
Mental health has only become a major issue in the last decade or so, of course training hasn't caught up. There is an active effort to do so but it takes time. Research has to be done, studies published, and states have to decide on protocols to set.
Nope, can't say that I was.
I don't have family, and I don't really care about money either. I just feel it's what I'm best at, and that it'll take me places.
That's sweet to choose family, though, if not a little foolish, if you don't mind my saying so.
Of the FBI agents I've interacted with, most are well grounded individuals that want to prevent crime and bring criminals in. But there's a huge disconnect between FBI agents and your patrol officer, which leads to tension between the two.
Picture Law Enforcement as a franchise retail store.
Your Federal Executive departments (DOJ, DHS) are corporate.
Your federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, Marshals, DEA, etc) are your franchise owners
Your municipal departments are the store workers.
The FBI is the owner that stops in maybe once a week to pick up the money earned, only knows a handful of the employees, and has a "better than you" attitude, despite being a pretty awful manager and relying heavily on his floor managers to keep everything working.
I know. I might not be as happy with my job.
But in the end, if I can have fun, shoot guns, and go camping and hiking with my boys and drink Monsters and watch scary movies then I will be happy enough.
Besides then I get to choose what type of gun I want to carry instead of being forced an issued gun. :P
I'm taking Chicago PD exam in April and DC Metro in May. Good luck OP, nice to see NYPD has a list, CPD seems to be going the way of making all new recruits take a Glock 17/19 for duty and thats it. Days of .45 SIGS are gone. Amazed NYPD has their shit together enough to call you back in a few months. After CPD's exam in April, even as a minority candidate and college educated I'll be shocked if they call be by April 2017.
>I took my exam in February of 2015, the average wait time for NYPD is 18-24 months
That makes sense. I'm hoping Chicago's "lottery" won't fuck me but I'm sure it will. Hope they call you for July, I'd taken the NYPD exam, was born in Manhattan but the pay is just ridiculous for living there, if my dad hadn't sold his apartments I for sure would've gone and taken it.
Not the original anon but I agree with >>28509667
It's not adults consumption that's the problem, if you're 18 and have decided to ruin your life, go right ahead I don't give a fuck. But these dealers are selling to 12, 13 year old kids, who have a chance to actually not be dindu nuffins on the street, instead, they can be didus in academia and the community
They're federal, so they head investigations, and then they have teams designated for actually apprehending the suspect. The majority of all investigations are done at a local level through join task forces.
>Killshots when disabling ones are viable without any actual risk to the officer
Most cops have pepper spray or tazers for this purpose. Using a gun for a "disabling" shot is just going to end up with people dead
That's because unlike in America the average European can not own or has easy access to an automatic rifle.
Whereas any American citizen without a criminal record or a 51-50 in all 50 states can legally purchase and own a semiautomtic battle rifle and armor.
NYPD is a typical group of organized criminals and state sponsored terrorists in many circumstances. I know careers are pushed really hard these days, but there is a Line that most people with morals and principles draw in the sand and working for such an organization would be crossing said line. Enforcing wonton stop and frisks, enforcing the pistol permit racket known as the Sullivan act of 1911 which caused a 20% increase in crime when it was enacted. The base line fact that the citizens of NYC were saving millions of dollars a day when the NYPD refused to arrest for small crimes for two week, they stopped in protest of the two cops that were shot by a random guy just goes to show they are a waste of space. They are a detriment and a liability to people at best and organized criminals and domestic terrorists at worst.
Be a paramedic or someone who isn't just gonna be revenue generator.
Former TX sheriff deputy BTW.
Didn't the K9 used to be on the off-duty list too? I heard it was removed because it couldn't be made to have a disgusting trigger pull
>Want to apply to Canuck police (ideally not RCMP)
>Tfw eyesight sucks, surgery to fix will be expensive (I was quoted like 4 grand once), no guarantee that it will work
Otherwise I'd love firefighters, except they are hardly ever hiring. And when they are, it's like 3,000 applicants for 10 positions
>Otherwise I'd love firefighters, except they are hardly ever hiring. And when they are, it's like 3,000 applicants for 10 positions
Then step your game up, it's competetive.I just tested for Seattle against 10,000 other people and have an interview this month.
I'm sorry where are you from again? The neighborhoods were already pissed off. Anti-police culture is their culture. These are the same neighborhoods that always find something to bitch and moan about. Same utopias that when FDNY would show up on calls, push refrigerators off the roofs.
Effective at nothing more than eliminating the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a former deputy I even realize most laws that prohibit things like weapons and drugs are still victimless crimes. arguing stop and frisks effectiveness is only in the use of it to snare people on victimless crimes. We as Americans have a very well defined history path as far as standards of law and liberties go. Just because one small portion of country who are subject to dangerous and immoral standards tolerate them, doesn't change the fact that its fucked up and serves no purpose other than usurping the peoples rights to be secure in their persons and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified by our constitution and bill of rights.
I like cops keep it up brother!
>great off duty opps.
Good for you man! Better then most these guys around here can say.
>weapons and drugs
Not when done by nig nogs. And drug crime is not victimless, maybe to the user it is. But the violence caused by drug dealing is not. The only way to stop it is to try to stop consumption, and that starts with arresting people for drug use.
reinforcing their opinions certainty helps the situation. /s
if you want their culture to change, you have to make them want to change it. You can't just keep arresting them. that gets you nowhere
yeah they fucking do.
I was in europe last summer. France had god damn soldiers with FAMAS and body armor patrolling the streets. Norway had soldiers in full kit and rifles patrolling the streets. Belgium I saw cops rolling deep as fuck with submachine guns. Sweden was really the only place I didn't see cops walking around looking like they were about to raid el chapo.
Being against unjust and abusive authority is an inherently American principle and virtue. Our governments founding documents and laws were created and codified around such principles.
Wait so it's up to us to make sure they don't commit crimes and act like fucking savages? Why can other groups get their shit together but with blacks we have to make them want to change. IDGAF is they change or don't.
>you have to make them want to change it
You can't force people to want to change.
>You can't just keep arresting them. that gets you nowhere
So just let them commit crime and hope they decide to reform on their own?
I agree stop and frisk was overreaching, but to say police in general are abusive and unjust is ridiculous. You sound like a liberal. Look at the stats on police brutality. Walk a day in a cops shoes and you will see 99% of all people they arrest most certainly deserved it. They deal with the absolute scum of the earth most of the time, depending where you live.
Alcohol was manufactured domestically. Please point me to the nearest opium farm on US soil? Or Cocaine Lab?
Hard drugs like Coke and Heroin need to be cracked down on. IMO 3 strikes your out type of thing. I live in an area where drug use is rampant. We just had 6 junkies kidnap an 80 year old and rob him them murder him and stuff him in a storage tote. All for drug money. Meth manufacture can be cracked down on as well if you crack down on the chemicals to make it. Foreign drugs can't compare to alcohol. Drugs need to be smuggled into ports. Crack down on smuggling and use and they can make all they want but it wont get anywhere if there isn't a market. BUILD WALL and the Cartel will have to use tunnels, which can also be stopped. Then they will have to use cars, which is becoming more difficult.
>You can't force people to want to change.
yes you can
>So just let them commit crime and hope they decide to reform on their own?
nigger, I mean that constantly arresting criminals isn't going to be a viable long term solution
>it's up to us to make sure they don't commit crimes
no it's up to the police, and the police are using head-on-pants retarded methods
Most people in new York city do not own pistols as a result of laws requiring a permit to own, a law enforced by NYPD. Most people if given a chance to carry a firearm for self defense and legalizing the majority of drugs would eliminate the black market that exists because of prohibition laws, think about the eighteenth amendment and the al Capone era. If these laws were repealed and people we able to actively defend themselves, you soon find that departments like the NYPD would collapse or be downsized and downgraded so much, that they might actually find a legitimate use besides revenue generation or organized crime and terrorism.
Yeah, like I said crackdown on smuggling and dealing. It was the fucking 20's, we barely had border security back then. You are using a stupid fucking argument.Probably a fucking tweaker yourself. Fuckers need to be dragged out back and shot. If you make punishments so stiff that it makes people actually think twice about doing it, they will maybe consider not doing it, especially dealing. Mandatory life sentence for heroin dealing and I bet you would see a decline in dealers. And cracking down on smuggling through ports is a lot easier than cracking down on manufacturing in other countries. The cartels have to move product through ports. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
You are going to get people who think drugs are legal and thats why they hate cops here.
"If all drugs were legal, large crime rings could not make profit and would fall"
"If child sex trafficking was legal then their would be no profit on it and it would fall"
They begin to see the retardation and will try to mock you or say you cant compare the two. BUttttttt ya can.
Drugs also alter mental states and idc what you say all drugs are addictive and lead to the sampling of other drugs.
A.) drugs are legal
B.) person can go try crack meth heroin etc. With no repurcussions
C.) people doing this are degenerates and fucking retards so chances are they dont work.
D.) Need to support the habit
E.) resort to crime
A.) Use drugs
B.) OD causing medical system punishment and tax payers (see Oslo Norway where heroin clinics are made to inject and now they have the 2nd highest OD rate)
C.) they do the drug and go out in public
D.) The following happens...
B-b-but I will have mai guns to protect me
>they will be armed too in your libertarian society
>Old mans buddy was in Mogadishu (ranger)
>Said people smoked crack and chewed Khat before fighting
>Shoot em they keep running even tho you hit em
>Enjoy mag dumping on human zombies that can come outta no where.
Or we could leave it illegal and this not be an issue.
Support the blue
>we just need to spend more money
because increased border security has been working on the drug war right?
notice how your shitty argument goes straight to attacking my character instead of admitting how fucking ineffective the drug war has been.
grats on being a stupid fuck that has no idea what freedom actually entails.
>no it's up to the police, and the police are using head-on-pants retarded methods
Asking guys that look like they might be carrying a gun to empty their pockets is retarded? NYPD got results like they did before this DiBlasio bullshit because they were proactive dept.
Our borders suck we have next to nothing in them. In arizona militias have to protect them. The Border patrol says the borders are in dire need of help and they need funds to get the right people on the front lines where the war on human trafficking, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, etc. is occurring.
Dealers if such drugs would be more deterred from citizens who could carry firearms and weapons for self defense without any license or permit, cops are mostly noun by law and procedure but a everyday person with a properly safeguarded right to defend themselves wherever they are is gonna have an invested care in the place where he lives, its common in small towns and is more then capable of happening in big cities if rights and liberties are respect, protected and most of all acknowledged.
this is going in circles, see
Obama refuses to see them, and they are grossly underfunded. You wanna look at some motherfuckers who get into shootouts daily look up BORTAC. I dont think you know just how big the border is and like i said militias have to help police it now.
>because increased border security has been working on the drug war right?
It actually does dumbfuck. The cartel has had to resort to different methods because it's getting damn near impossible to smuggle drugs by car. Once you build a wall then you wont have to worry about mules. And tunnels can be detected. You can't fix a problem without spending money. The drug war has been ineffective. but partly because our borders are fucking open, literally. In some spots its just 3 strands of barbed wire on a wooden post. Mules can easily get through. If there was no land access aside from driving, the amount the cartel smuggles would drop dramatically. You know how we stopped them from smuggling drugs in car tires and other compartments? By spending more money. Fixing shit aint free. I'd rather pay for increased border security to stop smuggling than taxes to support druggies who turn career criminals.
>notice how your shitty argument goes straight to attacking my character
You did that first fuck tard. You had one rebuttal with no sources then name aclled.
all the cons of your strawmen are present today.
mean while in portugal
Exactly this 100%. Allow the coast guard to get involved MSRT MSST and the average security puddle pirate would love to. Beef up the wall make it huge in some spots the border is literally just welded metal so vehicles struggle to drive right (arizona has this A LOT). Border patrol struggles to police all of it and lacks funds for multiple high end choppers, more hands on the front lines, etc.
In a country based off of>>28513383 such policy is because a pistol in and of itself should not even be a crime. There are more states every year that get constitutional carry passed to restore second amendment rights. Idaho and Kansas are both pushing for it the year. It's Time to reverse the post Jim crow law era and the fuckery brought on by the stretched thin current incarnation of the commerce clause.
Portugal is a country of 1 million and they are decriminalized and dealing them is still illegal. In addition the gov has a program set up where tax payers dollars are used to help anyone who says they are "addicts" or get found with drugs. This program that tax payers are forced to pay for allows addicts to go to school free, hobbies free, housing free, etc.
In other news countrys where drugs are legal entirely or set amounts...
Czech Republic (limited but the albanian mob is still here controlling addicts to do their bidding)
Brazil attempted it in early 2000s but crime was nuts
Dont believe narcotics are legal here
Africa has a completely different culture and while it would be nice if Somalia had a similar history and constitution as the united states in afraid such comparisons are not feasible.
>citizens govern everything
>people can kill each other
>get a huge group of people with a lot of guns
What its like you dont understand human nature. And a constitution, please 98% of americans know nothing about it.
The border is barbed wire on wooden posts in places. I've stuck my hand through the "fence" as a kid because I thought it would be cool to have my hand visit another country. The border is open if there isn't an impenetrable wall.
I'd go P226 DAO with the 18 round flush fit Mecgars (mine work great, mine is superior DA/SA though)
Off duty rock the Glock 26 w/o the NY trigger.
I hope you know what you are doing, the only reason you should be getting into NYPD is so you can transfer into any department you want, anywhere in the country, within a few years - NY is a shithole.
>When Al Capone Smuggled
>ATF Founded in 1970s
You keep moving goalposts, first you say Al Capone smuggled through Canada then say the border wasn't open during that time, but then say the ATF and coast guard prevented canadian smuggling when the ATF didnt exist then
I will provide a pic of the mexican border that is being built by militia men now. Many parts of the canadian border are simply no touch zones as well. Meaning no fences. Feel free to google it.
>I no like ur answer you a meanie and right so now i insult reeeeeeeee
Firearms are lethal weapons, but shots to extremities, when applicable, are still part of the force continuum - sure you might not be able to save a bloke who's been shot in the leg, but he's more likely to survive than someone who's shot in centre mass.
There is no reason not to have it as an option in the toolbox.
So is your internet controlled, your food, your ability to buy stuff at markets, weapon ownership, etc. Some are to an extent but no you are free and can do as you will as long as its not fucking up society like it seems like you want to do.
You can't be too coked out to be affected by a tazer. It's not possible. The only reason a tazer won't bring someone down is if it malfunctions or the electrodes don't make contact
Yeah and they are all shitheads who need to die.
Yeah, still not the ATF like you said. And that doesnt change the fact the border is still open to this day, so it was obviously way more open back then. Have you ever seen the Canadian border outside of the checkpoints?
>Because de-escalation puts the officer and the general public at risk.
Bull fucking shit. The US' police force is the only one among first-world nations utterly incapable of dealing with normal situations without dumping an entire magazine into suspects.
Heres the border btw in canada
You're talking about the NYPD - who can't manage to hit a perpetrator center mass without hitting half a dozen bystanders on some occasions - now you're expecting them to try hitting a flailing arm or leg instead?
>confirmed for never shooting at anything but paper
This is modern times...Imagine what it was like in the 20s lol and even before hahahahah. They are not cherry picked you can literally google "sneaking across canadian border" 100s of pics.
Don't get into any LEO work if you cant handle banter and hate. I like my job, I have helped a lot of people who were very kind to me in return and even then ive had the occasional dude looking for a fight calling me a pig and getting in my face. KNOW YOUR LAWS, cant stress this enough, take night courses if you have to but know your shit down pat. Also be able to handle said banter, pick and choose your battles, if you have a soft ego you want last. Have something outside of the job to do as a hobby. Cars, hiking, I knew I guy that played in a jazz band. Find something to de-stress.
That being said, you do have to be an asshole at times, it just comes with the job. Always approach every situation vigil but cordial until needed otherwise, but don't be afraid to be a hardass. Youre the police, youre there to break up the parties, stop the drunks, and be the general buzzkill so people are going to hate you on site, but don't give them a reason until they start, just because youre being filmed also means they are so use it to your advantage
Welcome to the job, the chief is on my ass
consuming it isn't a problem, you want to slam that poison in your veins that's your business, its when you rob a convenience store, start masturbating in a public park, or chase middle schoolers when it becomes a problem. Im not even a cop but I don't give a fuck when I see some tweaker get his ass beat
What even is in all of those pouches?
>3 pistol mags
>big random pouch
>even what pouch behind rifle
>random X on molle on stage left
Yeah NYPD are all faggots
before you do it Op, I want you to know that you will no longer be a part of society. You will be a cop. Sure, people like me support you, we know you are a necessary evil, and we know that you do a job that needs to be done. But we will not associate with you, we will not invite you over, and we will not let our kids play with yours. We will be careful around you, because we distrust you. Even perfectly law-abiding middle class yuppies will avoid you.
You will notice this and resent it. After all, you are doing a shitty job. You will have people spit on you all day and when you go home they will quietly snub you. You will become bitter and wonder why noone likes you. You won't ever figure it out, and you will get more and more bitter, and eventually you may even turn into the statist asshole we all hate here on /k/.
Also: if you work for the NYPD you are on the forefront of taking peoples second amendment away. If you are going to be a cop at least aspire to be a sherriff man, you will have less of what I described above
>Find something to de-stress
>pick and choose your battles
Read between the lines folks: you'll hate your co-workers like you hate the guy who just shit in the back of your car. Drink and hit your wife
>This WILL be the outcome every time.
Sure explains why it seems to work perfectly for non-clapistanian cops.
>May I ask your experience with guns in general, pistols in particular
Several years owning and shooting them regularly.
>hitting moving targets?
IPSC, roller targets. Nothing fancy, I know.
What's the point you're trying to make?
>Please enlighten me on the effectiveness of shooting to wound in a situation that requires a lethal weapon such as a firearm.
Effectively stopping the threat, while reducing the chance of lethally wounding the suspect.
Ok, fine, then in that case I still disagree with you, but at least you're arguing from the point of view of someone who's picked up a handgun.
This is the point I'm trying to make:
>Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:
>“Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.
>“The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.
>“There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved.
>“Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.
>“The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there’s a greater chance you’re going to hit the suspect’s brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to ‘safe’ from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass?
>“Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.
most people don't do those things, maybe save for the robbery.
Drugs fuck with your mind and make you do stupid shit, if you OD in a bathroom at mcdoanlds I don't care but if you threaten my way of life that's a problem
>t..theyre just sick
>we need to give them our money and help them
Id sooner gas them. If youre going to take some hardcore drugs like meth, crack, heroin, ect then you know what youre doing to yourself and you just hinder society. Smaller stuff like weed or even hallucinogens is fine though
>“Why didn’t they use pepper spray/nightstick/taser instead of a gun?”
>One person in a unique position to answer that question is Michael Yon.
>Yon is a former Green Beret who left the service after killing a much larger man in a bar fight in self-defense with a single punch.
>4) Nearly all firefights are “stress shoots.” The other guy is moving. Heart is beating fast, often out of breath. The officer in Ferguson had just been punched in the face and had been in a wrestling match for his pistol, according to him.
>5) Bullets that miss can hit someone else.
>6) You always are low on ammo, and you do not want to waste a single bullet.
>8) I have seen many people shot who kept fighting. Shot with weapons far more powerful than any officer’s pistol. Many police and combat troops have seen this and will verify.
>Police officers and self-defense shooters all learn the same thing: you shoot to stop the threat. The best way to stop that threat is to put bullets in the largest possible part of the body (typically, the upper torso). If that fails to stop the threat, you then rely on your “failure drill” training and move to the head, and if that fails, the pelvis. You “work the problem” by moving your shots from the torso to the head and pelvis.
>Killing isn’t a goal, but it is often a side effect of an aggressor who refuses to comply with lawful commands and who continues to demand ballistic attention.
>tazers aren't 100% affective and are in fake pretty finicky
>same goes for mace
>Im not wrestling around with a dirty tweaker with an HIV knife and loosing an eye
maybe don't be a tweaker with a knife in the first place, eh?
And increasing the chance of missing, or hitting unwanted targets. Decreasing the chances of neutralizing the target, and generally endangering other people including the officer. If you are in a situation where you need to shoot someone, you shouldn't need to worry about hitting their extremities, you should be worried about quickly stopping them. There are LL munitions for situations not needing lethal solutions and still don't consider extremities as targets.
The crux of it is this. If you're resorting to a handgun, you're facing lethal force with lethal force. If the deadly threat isn't there, you're not - or should not - be using a firearm, you should be using other options.
Now that you've resorted to deadly force, it should be applied quickly, and safely, to stop the threat to life - of you, of innocent bystanders - before the subject has the chance to take one of those lives.
Nobody in LE shoots to kill. They shoot to stop. They shoot to stop someone else killing.
Cite me some cases of lethal force being used less than lethally - you're implying the few times in Europe this has happened; I for one can think of an occasion an FBI HRT sniper actually took a weapon shot. But please, cite me some examples and let's work through them and discuss why it was or wasn't a good idea.
if you get the sig you'd probably be the only one. When I went to NYC I saw a lot of cops and naturally checked out their guns. Every single one of them had a glock 19, some were beaten to shit also
Whatever you get, make sure you really practice with it and buy plenty of your own ammo to train with. I shot a modded 12lb trigger at my range once for the hell of it (they literal just had it as a "see what the NYC cops have" special) and it was awful. I don't defned them for messing up most of their shootings but I can easily see why it happens
>Portugal is a country of 1 million
Portugal is a country of 1*0* million, and even though they might spend alot in rehabilitation, the usa sure spends far more(percentually speaking) on their war on drugs and the titanic prison population. Rehabilitation is helping people get their shit together, when you live in a society it means caring even for those who are wak and stupid, its why primates live togethr stronger as a union even when they have weak links. If you dont like it, go Innawoods and become a hermit. They also have a very capable public health system and goverment that is quite more effective than the usa, or any of the other countries you mentioned
Now we're getting somewhere.
I feel like you're arguing a very specific scenario. Sure enough, when the target is moving or the shot is far too likely to do no good, you either shouldn't shoot at all or shoot centre mass.
That's not to say that there will never be chances to hit that leg or arm. Moreover, it shouldn't just be limited to handguns - shoulder fired weapons such as the all-popular mp5 would be a lot more suited to the task.
>>“Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.
This is a point I conceded in the initial post.
>sure you might not be able to save a bloke who's been shot in the leg, but he's more likely to survive than someone who's shot in centre mass.
The leg can be TQ'd, a punctured heart cannot.
That's all fair and well, but consider that:
>a taser has an extremely short range, and both of the darts must hit the target
>LTL ammunition may not be available at the time
While most police cars have a support weapon in the trunk.
>And increasing the chance of missing, or hitting unwanted targets
Which need to be taken into consideration when taking the shot. That's a training issue.
I talked to some of my professors, all of whom were former or current LEOs about wanting to go federal. Heres what I got back
>education is most important, CJ, law, computers, ect obviously
>don't over look smaller things. One proff. Went to school for accounting and said the Feds considered him for a while
>military service is obviously going to look nice, but not a guarantee
>if you have a chance to join a local LEO, take it and over time you can move up
Basically the FBI looks for what they want when they need it and will hire you if they want it. They don't have set rules, Ive heard of people being 30 year old desk jockys getting a job over 21 year old marines. Its all about what they want and being ok with them moving you wherever they want
Yeah, just keep training until they can hit a moving arm or leg. You're living in a fucking fantasy world if you think that it's feasible to train officers to shoot like that in situations that might possibly require something like that. Hell, I'd like to see CAG pull off shots like that.
my fucking ass
I went to germane on vacation 7 years ago and saw cops with SMGs on the highway. A tour guide said theyre specially equipped in case they deal with arms/human traffickers who frequent the roadways
>I feel like you're arguing a very specific scenario
Really, the opposite is true - most times you're employing a firearm, the target is not stationary. The only time it would be PLAUSIBLE, not advisable, to shoot for a leg or arm, would be if it was not moving and not going to move - the times that's going to happen are very rare.
Most of the time, your target is moving, your target is pissed off, your target is flailing, your target is not going to present his arms for you to carefully take aim at and squeeze a round like an IPSC A-zone.
One other thing. How many rounds did it take, and how regularly were/are you shooting, when you could hit a say, 4" wide target first shot every shot?
How many rounds would that cost multiplied by every single officer on a force, multiplied by every single range visit, added to the cost of having extra officers to still be able to fill shifts while your force is now going to the range 3-5 times a week.
Not feasible for a large force, not feasible for a small force, and not sensible anyway.
>tfw Ive wanted to be a city homicide detective for years
>also want to be a Federal investigator like FBI or Marshals
>and a soldier
>and a Film maker
Ive got a lot of shit to sort through guys
>Yeah, just keep training until they can hit a moving arm or leg.
Why moving? I've been telling you from the beginning, if the shot is not feasible then it shouldn't be used. The exact same applies to warning shots, if there is no safe location where to put the round, you don't do it.
And they are a reality in most of the world. If you have a suspect whose activity needs to be stopped and an opportunity to shoot a leg instead of the torso, of course you should prioritise the less lethal area.
This is not rocket surgery, people. Simple concept.
Heres my 2 cents, take it as a personal opinion and hate on it if you want. Ill sleep fine either way.
I grew up surrounded by LEOs from east-west bumfuck towns all the way up to high-up feds through either family or personal connections and working in the field or related fields.
NYPD is somewhat of a special case, almost more so than other major cities. The criminal elements, their families, and their associates are looking for every opportunity to make the NYPD look bad pretty much because you are THE NYPD. They will escalate situations and test you, pretty much to see how much they can get away with. Especially once they find out you are the new guy, and believe me they will find out sooner than you can imagine.
Heres the issue: things arent like the old days. Meaningful walk and talk beats dont exist. Building rapport is a lot harder given the citizen/police climate. No longer will the citizens you serve (key mentality) give you tips or heads up anywhere near as much as they would in the past if you did things right. Things are more difficult. And its not strictly LEOs fault, some bad apples make it worse, but so does the entitled culture of todays generations.
You've probably read all about the great parts of the job and consider yourself a good candidate so i wont get into those details, but i will say one final thing.
I forget the anecdote and the exact percentages bit it goes something like this:
20% of LEOs will do the wrong thing whenever they have the opportunity, no matter who is around or who they are with. Whether it be due to reacting subjectively, having a short fuse, racial bias, etc.
20% will do the right thing no matter what. Period.
that remaining 60% will react to situations depending on which 20% they are working with that day
Be the 20% that has a strong moral compass.
>"haha yeah fucking right Mr. FBI, good luck getting that job if you're not an ex-special forces ultra high speed operator with 3 Ph.Ds and fluent in 15 languages."
The only people who say this are people who have never worked for the government and get their information about the IC from tv and movies.
So now we are in agreement.
I'll tell you a secret though, nobody really shoots for extremities with a pistol unless it's an extraordinary circumstance, they're mostly done with longer weapons.
Yes, actually. The vast majority of annual rounds expended by my country's police force have been warning shots. Presumably that's not counting situations where they've had to shoot a lock to break into a building.
Wherever you come from, stay there and keep your assfuck retarded ideas there too. If a gun is being used, it's going to be used to neutralize the most efficiently and with the least amount of tacked on danger or possibilities of harming unintended targets.
This is really retarded I know, But if I ever made it as a detective id carry a glock 26, partly because id be doing more desk work.investigating and Id prefer something small (and still 10 rounds is pretty decent) but mostly because I see the glock 26 as a modern eqivilant to a chiefs special .38 snubnose. Like how uniformed officer carried model 10s or 19s ( glock 17s or 19s) and detectives carried j frames (glock 26 and 27)
It just feels right to me
On a related note, why did the NYPD stay on the 9mm when everyone else got on the .40 bandwagon?
>Where are you from, anon?
That would be Finland. Not the one who posted this >>28509672 though, that's a different guy.
>And I'm still yet to see you cite examples of less than lethal weapons use
Firearms in particular, or l2l in general?
>If a gun is being used, it's going to be used to neutralize
>cities like NYC, Jersey City, Newark Boston and others have pretty good police, and especially good SWAT/ESU/SOG teams.
that's just the problem, American cops put way too much emphases on the door kicking, shooting part of the job, while almost completely ignoring the community interaction/helping people part (Aka 98% of the job).
And no, waiting behind a bush with a radar gun doesn't count as community interaction
Honest question: in your country, when is discharging a firearm lawful?
Here we require that the officer/citizen (broad brush -- some minor differences from state to state, policy to policy) face a 1) reasonable fear of 2) imminent 3) death or great bodily harm towards themselves or a third party before lethal force is used. If any one of those elements is missing it doesn't justify the force used, and we have to be able to articulate what it was that justified shooting.
For us, discharging a firearm is ALWAYS considered lethal force because it has the capability to kill or seriously injure. You can also use it to stop a forcible felony, but nearly all of those would involve the reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm.
Is there a lower threshold for a warning shot in your country? What about a wounding shot?
Well here's one example from 2010
The automatic translation is a bit wonky, but it gets the point across.
>suspect shot at the police
>police shot him in the leg
I can dig up more results for you if you'd like, but that will probably take a while.
you know in most cop shows the FBI s seen as bureaucratic jerks that overstep their boundaries cause they can? It does happen. Not every Fed Ive personably worked with was like this, but ive heard stories. Theyre just a bigger department with bigger fish to fry so they don't care if they step on toes to do it. I try to play devil advocate and understand their position, but I can get feisty
Thanks to the New York Times, the NYPD couldn't even get fucking hollowpoints issued until 1998. Seriously, look at this bullshit: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/nyregion/new-york-police-will-start-using-deadlier-bullets.html
How do you think going to a bigger bullet would have been taken?
And others..From a Criminal Justice stance allow me to explain just what Stop QUESTION and Frisk is.
When someone is acting suspiciously, a police officer has a legitimate reason to stop them. Suspiciously could be walking as if they have a gun, consistently reaching for where a gun might reasonably be, constantly looking at police officers and moving quickly, jumping a turnstyle, pacing back and forth in front of a building, etc etc.
Once stopped, a police officer can then QUESTION the suspect (This part gets left out by "activists" because it doesn't fit their shitty agendas of "Police harass muh youth"). The questioning consists of "What are you doing?" "Do you have any drugs/weapons?" and so on. This questioning cannot exceed a REASONABLE time, generally no less than 10 minutes, and no more than 45 is the rule.
Then, if the police officer has a reason to suspect that the individual might have a gun or drugs, they can perform a patdown of the outermost layer of clothes. They can't reach into pockets, they can't strip you in the street, nothing like that.
Stop, Question and Frisk reduced gun violence in NYC drastically, and since it was stopped/reduced under De Blasio the crime rate has increased significantly. Now, in regards to "But it was only ever used on blacks and hispanics", well, what demographic of people generally lives in high crime areas, particularly in NYC? Of course that's going to be the majority of your stops. That's fucking basic math.
It did have issues, it was used in excess, and often without due cause, but 10% of Stop and Frisks led to an arrest, not even counting the substantial effect it had on crime by merely existing.
I work with a former NYPD guy, am friends with two more, and a fourth is the son of a friend. All of them went with the Sig, one of the friends even moved to it from the Glock.
They are, interestingly, all gun guys.
>I shot a modded 12lb trigger at my range once for the hell of it (they literal just had it as a "see what the NYC cops have" special) and it was awful.
Funny story: when I first shot said buddy's Glock, I put it up, tried to pull the trigger, tried again, two or three more times, and then handed it back and told him it was broken.
It wasn't, it was just that unnecessarily heavy.
>Honest question: in your country, when is discharging a firearm lawful?
We don't have strict guidelines for what's lawful and what isn't - anything that is justifiable goes.
>Here we require that the officer/citizen (broad brush -- some minor differences from state to state, policy to policy) face a 1) reasonable fear of 2) imminent 3) death or great bodily harm towards themselves or a third party before lethal force is used. If any one of those elements is missing it doesn't justify the force used, and we have to be able to articulate what it was that justified shooting.
I completely understand that, but this is not legality what we're arguing about, it's the feasibility of the technique itself. I'm perfectly aware that the US laws prevent warning shots and shots to extremities, both of which are part of the force continuum over here on the other side of the puddle.
The rough force continuum is as follows:
>restraining; cuffs, zipties etc,
>spray (OC or CS; or a combination thereof)
>shot to extremity
>shot to centre mass
However, that is not some ladder- type of a situation where you HAVE to use spray before you can shoot - you choose the tool that gets the job done most efficiently and safely, all factors concerned. And yes, the safety is a suspect is a concern, as the job of the police is to apprehend the suspect so that he may be tried in court. They aren't executioners.
That's interesting, but at the end of the day you and I have two vastly different opinions and I'm doubtful we're going to bridge the gap.
There are many cultural, social, logistical and practical reasons the US police at large cannot and should not adopt a shoot-to-wound or firearms in less-lethal situations policy, but I'll leave you with this one, which is probably the biggest:
Law enforcement gets sued. Cops get sued. FBI agents get sued. DAs get sued. PDs and Sheriff departments get sued. This happens when shit goes wrong, when shit goes right, when hostages are rescued, when dindus do nuffin, when cats are in trees, when NYPD accidentally perforates a crowd of bystanders behind the guy shooting at them.
Most are frivolous, most, go nowhere, but at the end of the day, if deliberately wounding became an option, it would result in yet more officer-involved shootings, not less, and would result in a fuck tin of more lawsuits against cops.
That, more than anything, is why it's a moot point.
I respectfully disagree with your position but I understand why you hold it. I continue to hold mine.
1) I don't give a fuck about Portugal, Portugal has 1/30th our population, a singular overriding culture, no incredibly prevalent gang culture. The NY Metropolitan area has more people living in it than the entire country of Portugal.
>That's interesting, but at the end of the day you and I have two vastly different opinions and I'm doubtful we're going to bridge the gap.
>I respectfully disagree with your position but I understand why you hold it. I continue to hold mine.
Alright, fair enough. You at least considering my position is far more than I would have expected from a /k/ fag. Cheers.
Why would you want to join the NYPD? You might as well sign up for the Waffen SS while you're at it.
>Deploys "Hercules" teams to patrol the streets in full battle rattle for the sole purpose of intimidating citizens
>Engages in the completely unconstitutional practice of "stop and frisk" where random people are stopped and searched if the officer thinks they look "suspicious"
>Enforces NYC's numerous absurd laws that infringe on the rights of the citizens
Video of a Hercules team. This is the kind of shit I would expect to see in Mexico.
>We don't have strict guidelines for what's lawful and what isn't - anything that is justifiable goes.
OK, so when is, say, a shot to the leg justifiable when a shot to the torso would not be?
>However, that is not some ladder- type of a situation where you HAVE to use spray before you can shoot - you choose the tool that gets the job done most efficiently and safely, all factors concerned. And yes, the safety is a suspect is a concern, as the job of the police is to apprehend the suspect so that he may be tried in court.
The goal is the same in the United States. Despite the media narrative, the overwhelming majority of people shot by the police in the US are armed and fighting. For every Walter Scott there are literally dozens of people shot for presenting armed resistance.
>They aren't executioners.
And ours are?
>OK, so when is, say, a shot to the leg justifiable when a shot to the torso would not be?
Like I said, there are no strict definitions. The police will try to do their best so that the suspect is caught alive; if a shot to the leg is possible without undue risk of miss/overpenetration/ricochet/whatever, and other methods of l2l are not applicable or available, it should be prioritised over a shot to the torso.
>The goal is the same in the United States. Despite the media narrative, the overwhelming majority of people shot by the police in the US are armed and fighting. For every Walter Scott there are literally dozens of people shot for presenting armed resistance.
That's very unfortunate, but not very relevant. There are extremely safe neighbourhoods in the US, but warning shots/shots to extremities are still equally illegal.
>And ours are?
Well, judging by their tendency to magdump the suspect... kinda.
Also, to bring up another point: see this video:
Going by strict definition, wouldn't that officer be breaking the law in the US by shooting the pistol out of the hand of the suspect, ie using a lethal weapon in a non-lethal way?
OP here, I can elaborate on why US Police do not shoot to wound, and why we will never change to it.
Our police use what's called the Use of Force Continuum (Continuum of Force it's also referred to). In fact, even civilians are held to it to some degree when they are involved in a self defense situation.
Stage 1 is simply the Officer arriving. Officer arrives, suspect complies? Awesome, no force required.
Stage 2 is verbal commands. Officer first attempts to address the suspect verbally, commanding them what to do "Freeze, put your hands up, get on the ground", etc etc. Suspect complies? Awesome.
Stage 3 is physical contact to restrain a suspect. Arm locks and the like.
Stage 4 is likely to cause physical harm. Punching, kicking, spraying with pepper spray.
Stage 5 is intermediate weapons. This is tasers, pepper spray, baton, beanbag rounds, and also unleashing the dogs.
Stage 6 is deadly force.
The officer is supposed to escalate up gradually, but to do so in a way that does not put him/herself at more risk of harm, or the general public at more risk. So as I said earlier, a suspect with a knife, if they're within 21 feet, guns should be drawn. A knife is deadly force, it needs to be matched with deadly force. That doesn't mean draw and shoot immediately, but it means draw and be prepared to shoot if the suspect lunges or makes a move for someone. Now if they draw a knife and they have a potential victim very close, you may want to shoot.
Suspects are also broken into 4 categories
Passive Compliant - Complies with verbal commands, nonaggressive
Passive Resistor - Does not comply with verbal commands but does not resist being forced by the Officer
Active Resistor - Resists attempt to be controlled by the officer, but does not intend to inflict harm to the officer or anyone else
Active Aggressor - Resists attempts to be controlled and DOES show intent to harm the officer or others.
Can you cite the law for any state or federal agencies that make it illegal to use their weapon non-lethally? Your inability to differentiate the idea of using their weapon everytime they unholster it and actually using their weapon to neutralize a threat probably has to do with your poor grasp on the English language.
Stop, question and frisk is entirely constitutional.
Hercules teams are not at all intimidating unless you're a criminal, if you've ever interacted with NYPD you'd know that. They're there to respond to potential terrorist/active shooter scenarios, and to deter them. Most of the officers deployed on Hercules teams are pretty fucking chill, it's literally just overtime for the ESU guys.
The residents of NYC continue to overwhelmingly elect democrats to council and mayor, and support these laws. Most officers disagree with infringing on rights and use Officer's discretion often.
>Like I said, there are no strict definitions. The police will try to do their best so that the suspect is caught alive; if a shot to the leg is possible without undue risk of miss/overpenetration/ricochet/whatever, and other methods of l2l are not applicable or available, it should be prioritised over a shot to the torso.
So your police don't even have policy guidelines or a history of litigation to base their decisionmaking off of? And you can't come up with an example beyond vague platitudes. That sounds delightful.
>Brings up safe neighborhoods
>Bitches about relevance
It's actually quite relevant, considering you just referred to each of the 800,000+ LEOs in our country as executioners. Your misunderstanding of their goal -- probably stemming from reading drivel like Der Spiegel -- doesn't make it so.
>Going by strict definition, wouldn't that officer be breaking the law in the US by shooting the pistol out of the hand of the suspect, ie using a lethal weapon in a non-lethal way?
No. There was a gun present, and you could argue for a defense of a third party-type scenario. Lethal force doesn't have to kill, but it cannot be deployed unless it is being used by the other side. You're confusing "bad idea when somebody is trying to kill you or somebody else" with "illegal."
>Stop, question and frisk is entirely constitutional.
No it isn't. It was already ruled unconstitutional in the courts, but the ruling was overturned by a corrupt judge who claimed the first was "biased" but did not elaborate on what this meant.
>Hercules teams are not at all intimidating unless you're a criminal
This is exactly the kind of attitude I would expect from a wannabe NYPD officer. Regular citizens do not feel all that comfortable with kitted out dudes walking around on the street like they're in Baghdad.
> Most officers disagree with infringing on rights
If they did, then the laws would be totally unenforced. The city government has no power if the police do not wish to enforce their ridiculous legislation.
>So as I said earlier, a suspect with a knife, if they're within 21 feet, guns should be drawn
This is about where you'd consider shooting the suspect in the leg over here if no other options of stopping the suspect are working or applicable.
You really wouldn't want to get close to a knife-wielding guy, so it might very well be the best option in the situation.
YOU are the ones who are arguing that the use of a firearm is always lethal force, not me.
No I am not, like I said you are employing an either or fallacy.
>guy pulls out a knife
>cop pulls out a gun, tells the dude to drop it
Oh hey look, one of a million plausible scenarios that are PRACTICAL and don't require firing your weapon. You're a fucking moron for advocating for the average cop to employ shooting to wound. The examples you've been using like that Dublin one is a fucking sniper shooting a guys weapon.
Wounding shots are illegal, even for LEO, and I agree with that highly.
Like it's an opinion article written by a guy who worked a beat in literally the worst and most corrupt time in law enforcement?
The courts ruled by popular opinion, NOT constitutionality. If a suspect was searched and had their pockets emptied, we'd be having a different discussion. That is NOT what stop and frisk is.
I go into the City regularly, my family works there, I do odd jobs there, I have never once heard anyone, black, white, hispanic, asian, arab, etc. That was a law abiding citizen that disliked having the Hercules teams about. Most of them feel like I do about it. "The City has gotten hit once already, countless more attempts have been made, they're not doing anything, and honestly it's kind of cool to look at".
"Police get to decide which laws are enforced and which ones aren't". No, that's not how this works.
>The courts ruled by popular opinion, NOT constitutionality.
>If a suspect was searched and had their pockets emptied, we'd be having a different discussion. That is NOT what stop and frisk is.
Right, you just empty their pockets if you suspect you've got a hold of something illegal. Totally different.
>"Police get to decide which laws are enforced and which ones aren't". No, that's not how this works.
Adultery is technically illegal in New York, but the law is unenforced. Enforcement decides everything.
It's still an opinion article written by an ex-cop who was shot in 1971 during the most corrupt era of policing imaginable. He holds an incredibly obvious grudge against the department, and I will yield that he is right to do so, and he goes about with an incredibly slanted view of looking at things, like when he says the "circumstances under which the African-American youth, Michael Brown, was shot remain unclear".
Politico is a left-leaning website with a history of bias. This is an opinion article, with no citations other than this guy's word. And look, I agree, the 70s in ANY department were fucking awful, especially NYPD. It was a corrupt shithole, everyone knows that. But he isn't exactly an unbiased source here.
Judges and prosecutors decide what isn't enforced, not the PD.
And with SQ&F you can't check pockets. You can ask them to empty their pockets, but they can choose not to comply. But if you're at the Frisk stage and they refuse to comply, odds are you have probably cause then. You also seem to believe that they just stop people and random and search them.
>So your police don't even have policy guidelines or a history of litigation to base their decisionmaking off of? And you can't come up with an example beyond vague platitudes.
Nope, not really. They're rather well educated individuals who are trusted with extra privileges, so they're expected to perform in a rational and justifiable manner.
>That sounds delightful.
Yeah, living here sure does have its perks.
>It's actually quite relevant, considering you just referred to each of the 800,000+ LEOs in our country as executioners. Your misunderstanding of their goal -- probably stemming from reading drivel like Der Spiegel -- doesn't make it so.
I'm going only by what I'm witnessing in the footage that's available on jewtube and the like. If my assumptions are wrong, then it's your job to point out how and why I'm mistaken.
If their goals are the same, and the legislation allows the use of warning/wounding shots, then your LEOs are daft for not using those options.
>No. There was a gun present, and you could argue for a defense of a third party-type scenario. Lethal force doesn't have to kill, but it cannot be deployed unless it is being used by the other side. You're confusing "bad idea when somebody is trying to kill you or somebody else" with "illegal."
You concede that sometimes it is possible to use a firearm in a less than lethal fashion, yet you are still being absolute regards to wounding shots. Why?
Consider the video I linked, and replace the suspect's gun with a knife. You still have a scenario where you can legally deploy and use a firearm, correct? Now tell me why the hell that sniper shouldn't place the shot in a location that's less likely to kill the suspect outright, because I sure as fuck don't understand why.
>Judges and prosecutors decide what isn't enforced, not the PD.
Right. The judge will go kick down doors and arrest people if the cops won't do it for him.
>You can ask them to empty their pockets, but they can choose not to comply. But if you're at the Frisk stage and they refuse to comply, odds are you have probably cause then.
Yes, this is where the typical "I smelled marijuana" or "He seemed to be on drugs" bullshit comes in.
>You also seem to believe that they just stop people and random and search them.
The essence of stop and frisk is that it gives the officers the ability to legally harass citizens and invent reasons to search them. Nobody would be okay with the cops pulling people over at random to "ask them a few questions", but for some reason idiots like you are fine with the police doing it to people on the street.
No, but if officer's stop arresting for crimes (By the way, which laws are they supposed to stop enforcing, and which one's still need to be enforced? And how are we deciding this?), and the crimes are still occurring, then that would be illegal on the Officer's part.
this. NYPD kills more innocent bystanders with stray fire than gangbangers do. i have yet to read of a NYPD officer actually hitting the guy he was shooting at without taking down at least 2 innocents
>then that would be illegal on the Officer's part.
So all NYPD officers are guilty of failing to enforce NY's adultery laws.
>And how are we deciding this?
I assume that the police are capable of using their brains to figure this out. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit though.
So, you want to now empower all police to decide which laws they want to enforce, and you see no way in which this could go wrong? And this is a complete copout of an answer.
Cite me laws that you feel the NYPD should not enforce, and tell me why.
Adultery is also a misdemeanor, and without putting cameras in bedrooms, entirely unenforceable. So stop citing bullshit laws that exist only because the litigation to withdraw them would take forever to get through a state assembly.
i think what he is failing to articulate is the fact that most LEOs are roided out ex-military types. they already have PTSD, a military killing mindset, and an abnormally short fuse due to steroid abuse. so they tend to skip all the available options to de-escalate (like falling back, calling for backup, having another officer bring a beanbag shotgun) and go straight for the 17rd magdump on a drunk hobo who is cursing them out with a glass liquor bottle
To be fair, the article was written in 2014, when the facts were still unclear.
I'm inclined to believe him about the NYPD not cleaning up their act in any significant way, especially what with Adrian Schoolcraft, Amadou Diallo and the results of the Mollen Commission.
>In December 1993, the New York Times reported that the "special mayoral panel asserted ... that the New York City Police Department had failed at every level to uproot corruption and had instead tolerated a culture that fostered misconduct and concealed lawlessness by police officers."
In their own words again.
>Today's corruption is not the corruption of Knapp Commission days. Corruption then was largely a corruption of accommodation, of criminals and police officers giving and taking bribes, buying and selling protection. Corruption was, in its essence, consensual. Today's corruption is characterized by brutality, theft, abuse of authority and active police criminality.
Really? That's all entirely news to me. Did you know that most City PD's make an effort not to recruit former infantry/MPs for the sole reason of it's almost impossible to unteach "Shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that is drilled into them? That isn't to say that they're disqualified, but that there's extra consideration taken.
>So, you want to now empower all police to decide which laws they want to enforce, and you see no way in which this could go wrong?
I am not delusional enough to think that the police do not already have this power. I am not "giving" the police any power at all. I just realize that cops are entirely capable of selectivley ignoring laws that they do not wish to enforce.
As an example, I will provide you with this article. It's illegal in Seattle to smoke weed in public, but a single officer was responsible for issuing 80% of the tickets for this crime. Is this just because he was hyper vigilant, or is it because just about every other officer on the force had decided they wouldn't bother enforcing the law?
>Cite me laws that you feel the NYPD should not enforce, and tell me why.
No, because this is a pointless distraction from the argument at hand. The fact of the matter is that the police wield the power to decide what goes and what does not. This is true no matter where you go on the planet. Law makers are nothing more than men in suits. They only have power when their enforcers cooperate with them.
>Adultery is also a misdemeanor, and without putting cameras in bedrooms, entirely unenforceable.
David Paterson admitted in a public statement that he had committed adultery. Surely this would be enough to warrant an arrest if he had admitted to violating a law that was currently being enforced? There's plenty of people who will blatantly admit to cheating in public forums.
Because I'm having fun here.
The fact that there's an entire article kind of speaks for itself, but here's some choice snippets.
>According to analysis by the NYCLU, the number of tips of misconduct or corruption received by IAB more than tripled over the period from 1994 to 2006, but the number of serious misconduct investigations were cut by more than half. IAB was investigating approximately 15 per cent. of tips in 1994 ; by 2004, IAB was only investigating approximately 2 per cent. of tips, revealing a sharp decrease in internal investigatory oversight. In its press release announcing its release and review of the IAB annual reports, the NYCLU further noted that, "The annual IAB reports have become less informative over time, with critical information removed from them over time."
>The Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was established as an agency in New York City in 1993 to be staffed by civilians with the authority to investigate allegations of police misconduct. However, two decades later, its effectiveness was called into question. In 2014, former CCRB executive director Tracey Catapano-Fox alleged in a federal lawsuit that CCRB covers up misconduct by NYPD officers. Ms. Catapano-Fox’s lawsuit alleged that CCRB chair Richard Emery made a “decision to collude” with NYPD, amongst other charges.
>If my assumptions are wrong, then it's your job to point out how and why I'm mistaken.
There's a popular saying that's slipping my mind here, but the gist of it is that nobody tapes normal shit. People put videos on youtube that are outside the norm, so you're drawing your impressions from an already biased sampling.
>Now tell me why the hell that sniper shouldn't place the shot in a location that's less likely to kill the suspect outright, because I sure as fuck don't understand why.
I have an actual question here about your country? Let's one of your cops kneecaps the guy, bam, he goes down, bagged and tagged. And it turns out that the cop just straight up annihilated this mother fucker's knee, full on shattered that shit. The guy will never walk again without extensive surgery and rehabilitation, will never run again at all, and kneeling and lifting will cause noticeable pain for the rest of their life.
What happens to the cop and the department involved?
Except that the paper points out that cycling speed and reaction time make this wishful thinking that it can be pulled off against a non-compliant individual, which is the entire point of shooting at someone
A Terry Stop is the basis for Stop, Question and Frisk. SQ&F was modified slightly from this, but the policy at its roots is the same.
Hate citing NYCLU but..
"Nearly 9 out of 10 people stopped were innocent" means that 10% were not. Now, 10% is by no means a perfect statistic, but it is a fucking sizable portion for something that is apparently entirely ineffective.
>Nope, not really. They're rather well educated individuals who are trusted with extra privileges, so they're expected to perform in a rational and justifiable manner.
So just making it up as they go... Yeah, sure.
Discharging firearms into the air in a crowded area when faced with a vocal protest. Clearly the superior method.
>You concede that sometimes it is possible to use a firearm in a less than lethal fashion, yet you are still being absolute regards to wounding shots. Why?
No, I've never said that lethal force cannot be used in a non-lethal manner. You're simply being an absolutist, contrarian fuckwit.
Lethal force is force both capable of causing and reasonably likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Putting a hole within a couple of centimeters of somebody's femoral artery would constitute "serious bodily injury." So would shattering their forearm with that same bullet.
Case law in the United States -- which stemmed from officers effectively making shit up as they went along -- produced the rules I've described above. It can only be used to meet lethal force, or stop a forcible felony (which almost always involves lethal force). That's the law. Department policy (not the law) may be more restrictive than that, but it only carries internal disciplinary consequences and perhaps some civil liability.
If lethal force is used to disable (but not incapacitate), it opens the officer/citizen up to questions of whether its employment was justified in the first place. A prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney would argue, "If he only needed to be shot in the arm, what justified shooting him?"
Stop using Diallo as an example, that was a perfect storm of everything fucking up.
>Dude looks just like gun toting serial rapist
>Flees from police when approached
>Reaches into jacket when cornered
>One cop fires
>Ricochets out towards other officers
>Other cop steps back to avoid apparent fire
>Straight off the steps and falls to the ground
>3 officers assume he's been shot magdump Diallo
>All over before the officer who tripped can get back up
That was an absolutely tragic clusterfuck.
>David Paterson admitted in a public statement that he had committed adultery. Surely this would be enough to warrant an arrest if he had admitted to violating a law that was currently being enforced? There's plenty of people who will blatantly admit to cheating in public forums.
Are you really advocating arresting everyone who claims to have committed a crime in unsworn testimony? That's a fucking horrible idea.
>I have an actual question here about your country? Let's one of your cops kneecaps the guy, bam, he goes down, bagged and tagged. And it turns out that the cop just straight up annihilated this mother fucker's knee, full on shattered that shit. The guy will never walk again without extensive surgery and rehabilitation, will never run again at all, and kneeling and lifting will cause noticeable pain for the rest of their life.
>What happens to the cop and the department involved?
That's a good question, I don't really know for sure. I'm not certain there's even a precedent for such a case.
I'm assuming he's getting what medical help that can be given, and he's free to try to sue and he'll receive monetary compensation if it is decreed that the officer used excessive force.
The officer may be charged and punished accordingly if he was found guilty.
>"If he only needed to be shot in the arm, what justified shooting him?"
"I had already drawn my firearm in response to the perpetrator drawing a knife.He began to advance on me, and I felt that it was possible to incapacitate him with a shot to a non-lethal area."
Eurocops actually do this sort of thing btw. There was a case in France not too long ago where a cop shot a guy in the leg who was wielding a shotgun. The guy was taken alive and nobody else was hurt.
Not him btw.
>Still, if you're OP, you're about to be a pawn in a hideously corrupt organization.
Not OP, I work in an upstate agency that mostly doesn't have to deal with all that bullshit. Instead we get bullshit all our own.
>So just making it up as they go... Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure. There is no distinction between firearms and other kit the cops carry, they all can be used if and when the situation calls for it. The officers are then expected to act in a justifiable manner.
>Lethal force is force both capable of causing and reasonably likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Putting a hole within a couple of centimeters of somebody's femoral artery would constitute "serious bodily injury." So would shattering their forearm with that same bullet.
Sure. Still less likely lethal than putting the round in the torso.
As a reminder, we're talking about a police force that's generally more willing to be roughed up than pull out their weapons.
There's nothing wrong with the technique, so long as it's used correctly and there's no legislation that effectively prevents its use. Why are we still arguing about this?
>ITT: People not understanding that media thrives on crime, police being dehumanized, and other awful things for profit/views.
Many police officers out there do their job as the libcucks want, helping the community, being nice, being good people. The only problem is that they bite the bait from main news organizations for them to believe police are bad people bent on using their authority to take advantage of the American populace.
Remember, the media isn't here to keep you informed, it's here to keep you misinformed.
>As a reminder, we're talking about a police force that's generally more willing to be roughed up than pull out their weapons.
To be fair, Europe seems far more willing to let their police actually beat the shit out of people than the US. I lived in Germany for a about a year and the shit I regularly saw would not fly in America. As a country we seem to expect force to go from trained psychologist to pillow fight to lethal force.
Well, I can't speak for Germany, I have only been there for a day and didn't really see anything. I was referring to the only police force I really do know something about, the Finnish one
For one thing, they always seem to be embroiled in some scandal or another, and the higher-ups are largely dickheads who think they're better than the populace (and the same people who manage the firearms program/hate and shit on gun owners).
More practically though, they give you little choice where you get deployed since they're Canada-wide. When you graduate Depot (academy) they ask you to name three provinces (excluding Ontario and Quebec) that you'd like to go to, and they'll TRY to send you to one of them somewhere. You're also expected to move around a few times throughout your career. In contrast, if I get into my local PD (or Alberta Sherriffs) I won't be possibly sent to Shitdick, Manitoba population 80. As an added bonus, they also pay more and are generally better trained.
Not that it matters much, but also
>S&W 5946 service sidearm
I love those Smiths, but the DAO models they use are appalling. At least other departments generally use unraped Glocks and SIGs
Those shooting scores are not far off of international standards
All we had to do to complete our Firearms Programe was to be able to draw, charge and fire you weapon and in so doing hit a A4 sheet of paper 6 times at 10m
It was a fucking joke.
This, but at the same time if you let 3rd party agencies manage internal issues then they can become over zealous
I was a police reservist, an in my country interal affairs are managed by an independant entity who have become like inquisitors
I had serious problems with them for firing a warning shot - they wanted to have me charged with public endangerment.
On a deserted road 60km outside of Bloemfontien - ie: the middle of no where
No chance of anyone getting hurt
The alternative was shooting a guy infront of his family
He was drunk, he advanced on me armed with a knobkerrie, i drew on him and retreated - he did not obey my commands so a fire a warning shot. He then complied.
Riiight, Because your not going to be nervous enough going into someones house/ talking to a potential threat. GOD forbid you actually fear for your life when dindu Jr walks from around the corner with a butcher knife. But ya know, cops know how to defuse every situation right?
you used lethal force for a situation where you didn't want to be lethal.
go through the 4 weapons safety rules and tell me where you fucked up.
inb4 you try and make up some bullshit about how the 4 weapons safety rules only apply on the range.
How about I was on the job, alone, and over 30min from the nearest unit.
The subject behaved in a manner that justified the use of lethal force and the situation escalated faar faster than I could ever have anticipated
Instead of dropping him, I chose to try everything possible to save his life. Which I did by firing a round straight into the air.
I dont need no goddamn safety lecture from a guy whom seems to be of the opinion that killing a guy is a better option.
>its not strictly LEOs fault, some bad apples make it worse, but so does the entitled culture of todays generations
I'm pretty sure it's LEOs fault.
I'm buddies with a cop and he's told me on multiple occasions to never trust the cops and not to talk to them.
A gun is a tool, when taught properly a child can operate a weapon just fine. Should they? That's up to the parent. Heroin just fucks you up from the start. There is zero benefit from injecting heroin in your bloodstream other than, "muh high"
Methadone is still a hard drug, I'm saying all thes piece of shit dealers need to stop selling drugs because then kids get there hands on it and again it ruins there life forever.
>buddies with a cop
>tells him not to trust cops
>a cop saying don't trust cops
Isn't that an infinite loop or something? Plus cops are decent people who just want peace, most anyway. It's the ones with a superiority complex that fucks everyone over because "muh badge tells me I can do whatever I want"
>drug crime is not victimless, maybe to the user it is. But the violence caused by drug dealing is not. The only way to stop it is to try to stop consumption, and that starts with arresting people for drug use.
No, you are entirely incorrect. Let me show you where you went wrong.
>only way to stop it is to try to stop consumption
People will always consume. You're attacking the problem from the wrong angle. The only appropriate way to curb violence from drug dealing is to remove the "dealing" aspect by legalizing, and subsequently undercutting the black market. Allow me to illustrate, albeit with a bit of hyperbole:
>Daekwon has pot available, but he charges $20 for 3.5 grams.
>Mini Mart has pot available, but they charge $20 for a factory-sealed pack of 20 filtered joints.
If a joint is rolled fat, there's a gram of pot in it. That means Mini Mart is undercutting Daekwon by almost 300%. Now, Daekwon has no problem selling his pot to little twelve-year-old Jimmie. Daekwon also has no problem "defending his turf" with that AR-15 he's got leaning against the end of his couch. Meanwhile, Chuck over at Mini Mart asks to see state issued ID from anyone who wants to buy his cheap pack of smoke.
See where I'm going? Remove the motivation to deal drugs by removing the profitability. You're never gonna stop the end user. Look how well it worked during Prohibition. I mean, we had people drinking Sterno and gasoline, for fuck's sake! The only way to solve this problem is through legalisation, taxation, and regulation of these substances. Anything else is merely tilting at windmills.
>NYPD mostly enforces drug laws
Only for minorities.
E.g. possession of weed is decriminalized in NYC, but "public display" is not. When the cops stop and frisk Jamal and order him to empty his pockets, they then arrest him when he takes his baggie of pot out.
>Isn't that an infinite loop or something?
Not that anon, but it's not unusual for someone who knows the inner workings of law enforcement, especially their own agency, to think that what they do may be systemically fucked up.
And I wouldn't blame a cop for saying not to trust other cops, because there are more than one example of a cop doing the right thing and getting fucked over by his "buddies" in return.
Leo don't shoot to wound or disable that's a myth that people still seem to believe thanks to shitty tv dramas.
American gun owning citizens are more likely to draw their weapon in situations illegally.
Citizens are more likely to use their firearms illegally
Citizens are more likely to injure innocent people in defence situations
In practically every way in dealing with violence, especially involving guns, citizens are always much more incompetent than police yet no reasonable person looks at yet another accidental shooting in a home and blames all home owners.
Wouldn't this lead you to believe that possibly, just maybe, that people make mistakes in stressful and dangerous situations rather than some narrative about baby killing assault cops?
Gee, how about that post. I wonder who could be behind it.
Are you referring to the incident where the perp was sitting in a chair in the middle of an intersection, waving the pistol around in a regular pattern while threatening to off himself?
>being this buttblasted somebody can form emotional connections
holy shit you must be lonely
Nope I have a family and two kids.
But I also am mentally healthy. If I run a person over in my car, there will be problems, I will probably be very emotional, very upset, and do everything I can to make fun of my mistake.
On the other hand, if I run over a fucking dog in the street, I will feel a bump-bump, shrug and continue on because it's JUST A FUCKING DOG. It's an animal. Legally, it is nothing more than personal property. Its life has a literal price tag.
If you ACTUALLY think your dog is part of your ACTUAL family you legitimately have some form of delusional psychosis.
>yet no reasonable person looks at yet another accidental shooting in a home and blames all home owners.
>Wouldn't this lead you to believe that possibly, just maybe, that people make mistakes in stressful and dangerous situations rather than some narrative about baby killing assault cops?
I agree with you to a point, but "home owners" is not a group that is reasonably expected to have to deal with violent criminals, nor are they trained to
The police are a group that is reasonably expected to have to deal with violent criminals, and are they trained to. As such, they should both have and be held to higher standards.
Just saying "that" people make mistakes in stressful and dangerous situations doesn't absolve blame
Marijuana must be lit/burning AND in public view for it to be a collar.
Weed in jamals pocket is just a summons. even if he takes it out of his pocket upon request.
lol what the fuck? Looks fake as fuck, what's the story?
Wanting to be a part of the same people that brought you AI monitoring the entire city in real time(Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center), and enforcement of victim-less crimes with death. WTF is wrong with you OP. It's like you want skynet to take over. Go join the NSA you statist fk.