I see a problem. Give me one reason LEO's need this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So. Why do we tell smokers to put them out when we are contacting them on a traffic stop, Terry stop, or for other serious social purposes?

Do an experiment.

If you are a smoker, go outside. Get about 5 feet from a brick wall, and mark a circle about head high, and about the same circumference as the head.

Now, spark one up. Get a good cherry on it.

When it's going really, really good, thrust your hand out, and flick that cigarette as hard and as fast as you can, right at the circle. Note the explosion of sparks.

Now, imagine that the circle is an officer's face.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

THAT'S why we tell them to put it out.

End of lesson.
 
Wow... SERIOUS thread veer. But it ain't digressing (YET!) into us v them, so I'll play...


So... am I THAT non-threatening looking that no officer tells me to put my smoke out? Granted, I don't do anything that (in my mind) would signal that I'm dangerous, but still...

We're talkin' police all over the country here, not just one rural podunk...
 
I'll toss in my two cents.

I see no reason why LEOs should be denied this kind of gear. I do wonder how much they would want it if it was only available in pink.

I believe the money spent on equipment would be much better invested in training and pay raises. There is a limited budget, and it will be the police administrators who disburse the funds. Will the funds go to products, to training, or to people? In my experience, admittedly outside law enforcement, if you want to get the job done, you hire the best people and train them well. The products being hawked by vendors, no matter how glamorous, can not replace that.
 
If you are a smoker, go outside. Get about 5 feet from a brick wall, and mark a circle about head high, and about the same circumference as the head.

Now, spark one up. Get a good cherry on it.

When it's going really, really good, thrust your hand out, and flick that cigarette as hard and as fast as you can, right at the circle. Note the explosion of sparks.
Click to expand...
Oh, Pulease!
The person being stopped is driving a 4,000 lb weapon, in the first place. Inside that weapon are all manner of improvised hand-held weapons. And you're worried about him doing all manner of mischief and mayhem with his cigarette and "explosion" of sparks? Why not simply cuff every interviewee right from the git...then do a quick strip search just for safety? Or at least have your Patrol Rifle in hand and leveled, "just in case"?
Rich
 
2004-11-19%20thisway.jpg
 
To allow a person in a stop to smoke interferes with officer safety.

WildobviouslyAlaska
Click to expand...

by pipoman

As for "Officer Safety", I want LEOs safe for sure. They do go into harms way. One dead LEO costs far more than the cost of some body armor (in mere dollars and cents, not including the obvious emotional loss).

The problem from my experience is SOME LEOs abuse this and use it as an excuse to violate people's rights. These incidents have shrouded the whole "Officer Safety" claim in a negative light for some (me included).
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Please.... post 1 link to a story about "Officer Attacked By Cigarette Wielding Perp". What if I am pulled over while transporting my German Shepard? Should I automatically "put her down"? Now she IS an officer safety issue.
 
Oh, Pulease!
The person being stopped is driving a 4,000 lb weapon, in the first place.
Click to expand...

No argument with that; you are 100% correct.

Where this comes into play is when the traffic stop goes into something more. How so?

The person refuses to sign the NOI.
The person comes back "no record found";
The person has warrants,
You see something that you can articulate (based on your training and experience) that will build to the standard of proof known as "reasonable suspicion".

In each case, the traffic stop (which is legally an actual arrest; the signed NOI is your PR bond) just built into something else. You ask them to step out of the car.

Here, the cigarette scenario is quite possible; someone who is intent on causing you harm can utilize it as a distraction while they go after something bigger--their gun, YOUR gun, etc.
 
Oh, Pulease!
The person being stopped is driving a 4,000 lb weapon, in the first place. Inside that weapon are all manner of improvised hand-held weapons. And you're worried about him doing all manner of mischief and mayhem with his cigarette and "explosion" of sparks? Why not simply cuff every interviewee right from the git...then do a quick strip search just for safety? Or at least have your Patrol Rifle in hand and leveled, "just in case"?
Rich
Click to expand...

I think he was demonstrating how it could be an effective diversion or distraction.

I really don't think you should be a moderator, judging on how emotional you get for some user's posts.
 
I really don't think you should be a moderator, judging on how emotional you get for some user's posts.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're correct. I should never have referred to an automobile as a "4,000 lb weapon" or belittled the mind-numbing, explosive blast from a cigarette flicked my way.

Can I stay on, now? ;)
Rich
 
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Leap,,00.html

Here's another article about the LECTUS/LEAP police unform, with pictures...

SoldierTech_Leap-2.jpg


The article states that the LEAP (law enforcement advanced protection), is derived from the army's FFW (future force warrior) combat ensemble, shown here:

SoldierTech_FutureUni-1.jpg


Robo cop? I'd opt for a more citizen-friendly color (paisley), yes? Hey, let's dispense with the interrim measures, shall we, and just merge the military and police and be done with it? Pres. Bush has hinted at this, if another terrorist event were to take place (abolish posse c. act).

One member argued how BDU's were more economical than std. uni's...perhaps. However, this system looks to be much more costly. Yet, increased cost to outfit offcer/soldiers would be a perfect opportunity to rachet up asset forfeiture/seizure statutes so as not to increase taxes (unmentioned side benefit?) Anything is good if it just saves one life, as previous member (cop/soldier) has noted.:barf:

I enjoyed this passage from the cited article:
As the Army continues to research its Future Force Warrior uniform, the civilian law enforcement community is giddy about its own futuristic tactical uniform -- LEAP.
Click to expand...
:eek:

Giddy is a good word.

In previous threads, we've been told that:
Buzz cuts/shaved heads make for easier grooming, not to intimidate, copy marine recruit haircuts.
Balaclava masks are mostly used to provide warmth, not hide the identity of officers.
BDu's are primarily used for economy and comfort, not to mimic military.

I have a bridge for sale.


For the record, and to head off the inevitable charge of bias that some members love to throw around, I'm in favor of the new police/soldier uniforms.:) Not quite giddy, though. Give me some time to adjust.:o
 
[Quote:] Rich
"Oh, Pulease!
The person being stopped is driving a 4,000 lb weapon, in the first place. Inside that weapon are all manner of improvised hand-held weapons. And you're worried about him doing all manner of mischief and mayhem with his cigarette and "explosion" of sparks? Why not simply cuff every interviewee right from the git...then do a quick strip search just for safety? Or at least have your Patrol Rifle in hand and leveled, "just in case"?
Rich"

Because then you would be crying excessive force, illegal search, and they hurt my feelings.:p
 
Because then you would be crying excessive force, illegal search, and they hurt my feelings.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK. I'll take that to mean that, but for the legality, you absolutely support the immediate physical restraint of all persons stopped by Peace Officers.....in the interest of Officer Safety.

And you wonder why this suit has some people a bit concerned?
Rich
 
If the police can treat everyone they stop as a potential threat, due to some citizens attacking police, cant citizens veiw LEO's as a potential threat when we are stopped by them because some LEO's do wrong? It works both ways.
 
Perhaps you're correct. I should never have referred to an automobile as a "4,000 lb weapon" or belittled the mind-numbing, explosive blast from a cigarette flicked my way.

Can I stay on, now?
Rich
Click to expand...

Artful dodge. Congrats. You got your pithy response.:barf:

You know darn well what I meant.
 
i don't plan on taking on any police officers so more power to them. unless you plan on committing crimes and getting caught and engaging the police, there's really not much reason to be against it.

Bobby
 
i don't plan on taking on any police officers so more power to them. unless you plan on committing crimes and getting caught and engaging the police, there's really not much reason to be against it.
Click to expand...

New Orleans, various no knocks at the wrong address. I can think of several reasons you will be confronted by police, all the while you are not committing any crime.
 
I can think of several reasons you will be confronted by police, all the while you are not committing any crime.
Click to expand...
I think we're all aware of your bias and where you stand on all things Law Enforcement by now.
 
I think we're all aware of your bias and where you stand on all things Law Enforcement by now.
Click to expand...

And I think we all know what side of the fence you are on, with regards to civil rights. One only needs to look at your sig line on GlockTalk to figure that out.
 
And I think we all know what side of the fence you are on, with regards to civil rights. One only needs to look at your sig line on GlockTalk to figure that out.
Click to expand...
Here is the sig line, please explain your bias.

There are three kinds of people in the world. There are wolves and there are sheep. And then there are those who protect the sheep from the wolves.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top