I'm from the government, etc...

I too have been searching on the subject Daniel. I found the first URL to answer some of my questions about SWAT. The others are some stats. I found over 14,000 web sites for officers killed in the line of duty.
Once again, thanks for your input.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n228.a09.html/all
http://ponetwork.com/POMemorial/Slain98.html
http://ponetwork.com/POMemorial/Slain98.html
http://www.nleomf.com/News/LineofDuty/98deaths.html

There...I think I got them to work this time :)

[This message has been edited by LadydeeJ (edited August 23, 1999).]
 
Everyone on the firingline should order Alex Jones dynamite tape "Police State 2000" When you see this tape many of you "on the fence so to speak" will see just where this govenment is really headed. The Website is infowars.com. There is no Rational reason on this planet for all these Swat teams. Lets put them in the scrap heap of history like armor plated knights.
 
LadydeeJ: You might find the following links more informative on the circumstances surrounding the deaths of law enforcement officers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrm/pressrel/1998prel.htm

Note how the figures used in the FBI press release don't match up with the claims of the USA Today article to which you linked ( http://ponetwork.com/POMemorial/Slain98.html ). The USA Today article states that 63 officers were shot to death. The FBI press release states that firearms were used in the _murders_ of 58 officers. (Were the other 5 victims shot and killed by fellow officers?) Note that only 6 officers were killed while serving warrants. But another 6 were killed with their own weapons. (Yet, no one is suggesting that officers be disarmed.) At least more of officers were wearing their body armor.

By the way, for those interested on how many officers were killed by bullets piercing their body armor, the total number is 14 from 1988 to 1997. All 14 were shot by rifles: two .30-30s, one .30-06, four unspecified .30/7.62mm, two 7.62x39mm, and five 5.56x45mm.
 
Ladydeej,

We agree that an officer with a chip on his/her shoulder may be justified. But, if they can not control their emotions, they need to mend their ways or be taken off the street. If the problem is their "youthfulness", then they need to "grow up" or be taken off the street.

Just because a cop came from a bad incident twenty minutes ago is NO reason to slap the crap out of a speeder. If the job qualifications are too great for the person to fulfill, he/she should find other work - not defame all the officers who fill the bill so admirably.

The police need to police themselves first, then police the "civilians". This is being done well in some organizations, poorly in others. It is the poor organizations which need their leadership replaced. (I recommend starting with the Attorney General!)

I'm frankly getting tired of the disclaimers we are forced by our bretheren to attach to every post: I'm not saying SWAT is unnecessary, I'm not saying all SWAT officers or all LEOs are "cowboys", I know there are many fine LEOs, I know they have a dangerous job, etc. etc. etc.

When someone transgresses, regardless of his career field or position, he should be corrected. Period. I suggest our governments (plural), media, and criminal elements (to name just three) need corrective action. Hmmm. Sometimes those three categories overlap, don't they! ;)
 
I can't help the cop who has the nasty chip anymore than I can help the nurse who is being belittled by a "know it all" doctor. Or the nurse who sits behind a desk pushing a pencil while the nursing assistant works short staffed. No matter what field you are in you will find a**holes. These people will use their degrees, uniforms, or intelligence just to control the life of the common worker. Some people are just naturally good at belittling. It is a shame, but nonetheless, true. A good example of that is the lady who gave you such a hard way to go at work. All we can do is brush these people off and hope that they will receive what is coming to them.

I've been advised by a dear friend to "fall back" on this thread which is what I intend to do, but one more thing before I go. Since being on TFL I hear constantly about how pro-gun men and women are upset because of the negative press received by the media. The same can hold true for law enforcement. Until I've have done what these guys have done. Seen what these guys have seen. Lived what these guys have lived, I will remain unbiased. I'm getting very useful opinions from Law Enforcement Officers and that of civilians. Each side has been eager to provide their assistance. I intend to use all that I've learned and will continue to see the pros and cons from both sides while trying to remain neutral.

Thanks again for all the opinions given…I'm falling out now. I've filled a water bucket up so that I can sit in it and extinguish my flaming arse. :) :)
 
Ladydeej,
I'm doing something wrong here. I'm trying to agree with you!

Again, "regardless of career field", the unacceptable performers must be corrected or dismissed - to the benefit of all - "customers", colleagues, and the individual in question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top