View Single Post
Old 12-17-2008, 02:30 AM   #9
vanir's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: south of Gundagai
Posts: 632
You're familiar with these sorts of situations, obviously, a person with a knife, with no training, can still kill a person. Kevlar doesn't do jack for a knife. Give 'em a little speed and they may go through half a dozen people before they're stopped. Heck you can put a few bullets into a guy on speed and it won't slow 'em down, and they might be armed with nothing less than their own two hands.
Absolutely yes, this is on my mind with no small amount of genuine concern...pain even you might call it. I do not wish for people hurt in any circumstance, any person hence my initial interest in security. I found myself...stepping in on things a few too many times and thought, you know I really should have a medical care benefit program for this just in case, plus it'd be nice to get paid for the things we do

So, how many cops should I sacrifice to stop one kid without killing them? Honestly, there are lots of kids in the world, and there will always be more, people are pretty apt at making new ones, and pretty good at not teaching them jack so there will certainly be more kids who end up in situations like this.
Valid point, can't deny it. Sometimes I just wanted to say, bugger it. Had this group of junkies, a mugging, it had nothing to do with me but hell, someone was going to get killed, well...I dunno, a lot was going through my mind. I was lucky being pretty well trained at the military and in martial arts, then you throw in the human factor and I was ten seconds away from all over the place. I think I was lucky, very lucky very many times. I always seemed to find a way (not always leaving with me looking all tough and whatnot, but who cares, right? So and so didn't get stabbed and now all the attention was on me, big deal, I got a little wound and nobody got a big one, I lived and it just uses up the next guy's concessions).

you say "shooting bad" I'll find you a dozen instances of "tackling bad" "hitting bad" "restraining bad" and so on. I, like you, know cops, ex-cops, military, ex-military, and everyone in between.

So, my question: how many cops should stopping one kid cost?
Again can't deny, it's food for thought. I get tossed all around by the subject to tell the honest truth, one side or the other, somewhere in between. It is something I have a very strong sense requires some serious examination about this moment in world political development however. I think it may touch upon several rather controversial areas.

Also: your title of this tread is somewhat offensive. Cops are indeed "everywhere" and as are the people they end up killing. Cops are not however, randomly mowing down kids in the street, this isn't South Africa and this isn't Apartheid. You know this, I know this. You're not scoring any points here by making cops out to be violent maniacs. As someone familiar with "ex-cops" and "ex-cons", you should know that's not the truth.
In fact my industry professional circles and close friends, ex-industry and the other end of the gun so to speak, are all genuinely concerned about what is often politely referred to as an element of corruption. The assumption that whom essentially consider themselves a workplace industry no different to factory workers also consider themselves not only above the law, but beyond any regard in making the decisions of whom lives or dies among the public. Believe me, I've sat and bit my tongue about some of the most ridiculous assertions levelled by very high ranking, career police officers that, if had a tape recorder would have them in a court room. This is not at all unusual, and any career police officer in any country will tell you the same. I've developed a philosophy along the lines of absolute power and absolute corruption, etc.

Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm sure there are some young officers that probably should have them and some young officers that probably shouldn't. Since people are permitted to choose (or not choose) their own profession, I imagine that most police forces are required to select their candidates from those that apply. Sure, some screening can (and does) take place at this first step, as does additional screen occur if the cadets are incapable of successfully completing the training.
Unfortunately it is up to the democratic to examine the manner and matter of screening and appropriate qualification. In fact most police forces (which are regional by nature) hold ethics paramounts other than strict law enforcement. For example, the Victorian Police application pack states it is the primary objective to support the community, which is further outlined to amount effectively to mob rule before strict legality, and popularity before correctness. Secondly the Crown is an unquestionable authority, yet Parliament is not always benevolent in its legislative prowess, which may very well be whimsical at any given instance. Thirdly police are empowered under the Sherrif rule of Ye Olde England, as a representative of the Crown and therefore an unquestionable authority among the general public. The international human rights commission is somewhere, oh about forty places down the scale of something nobody ever thinks about, ever.

police officers are highly-trained professionals
VCE qualification, no criminal record in the last five years, reasonable health and a 12 week training scheme which concentrates mostly on obstacle courses and taking orders. A total of a couple of hours are taken with firearms, no celebrated industry professionals are used in hand to hand training which is generally gleaned from commercial sports rinks like the Samurai Karate School. Most instruction relates on how to level the Crimes Act such as Section 462(a) which governs the proportionate force rule and states that if a police officer may use at least one greater degree of force than any offender in the course of duty. Actual descriptions of proportionate force are taken from US and British publications written by ex-industry professionals, however are inherently subjective and poorly recognised in many courts. Generally speaking it is stated that a closed fist or aggrivated assault easily warrants the use of firearms.
No training is given in when a firearm might be a good idea to use, or when it can be used and probably legally justified, but is not strictly necessary or a good idea.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 12-17-2008 at 01:49 PM. Reason: deleted comment to now-deleted previous comment
vanir is offline   you may: quote & reply,