Average Soldier had a Bullet Proof Vest (not really bullet proof) a hand gun and a rifle.

 

So you don't think police officers should wear a vest, carry a gun and have a backup shotgun and rifle available in their car.

 

The body armor worn in Iraq with the additional ballistic plates installed are much different and heavier than what your average officer would he given. A shotgun or semiautomatic rifle is really not to much to be honest, but you can easily expand your argument beyond its current scope. Look at the killdozer incident in Granby, Colorado ten years ago.

 

A pistol, shotgun, or an M4 would have been of little to no use in that situation. By the logic of "just in case" we might as well equip them with Javelin missiles as well, just to be on the safe side. How much sooner could that rampage have been stopped if only local police had access to antitank weaponry. We should probably have scout sniper teams deployed across cities regularly too in the event something happens.

I think police officers should have access to any type of guns and body armor needed to keep up with the bad guys on the street who have considerable more fire power than Barney Fife ever saw in his lifetime.

So you just ignore the arrest warrant? I guess the judge would be cool with that.

 

First response IMO wouldn't be to kick the door in either...but if you knock on the door and they refuse to come out should the police just give up and go home?

 

Again, for a misdemeanor that is inappropriate.

A warrant for a misdemeanor? I'm not sure that response is appropriate because the officer doesn't know what's behind the door nor does society want a shootout over unpaid parking tickets.

 

If a guy runs from the cops he is fleeing and evading, which is a crime in itself.

What a shame. Always hate to hear of any police involved shooting.

Again, for a misdemeanor that is inappropriate.

 

Are you saying it is wrong for the police to serve the warrant. Not kicking in a door, but attempting to make contact with the individual that the officer is charged with serving the warrant on?

First response IMO wouldn't be to kick the door in either...but if you knock on the door and they refuse to come out should the police just give up and go home?

 

You don't kick in the door for a misdemeanor warrant.

You don't kick in the door for a misdemeanor warrant.

 

You also don't shoot a cop over serving a misdemeanor warrant.

You also don't shoot a cop over serving a misdemeanor warrant.

 

100% agreed.

If a guy runs from the cops he is fleeing and evading' date=' which is a crime in itself.[/quote']

 

Doesn't mean you can shoot him.

Elmendorf police chief killed during traffic stop - KABB - San Antonio Top Stories - News, Sports, Weather, Traffic

 

 

 

Reading a couple reports on this, it seems as if the Officer spotted a subject with an active misdemeanor warrant for graffiti and made a traffic stop to arrest him.

 

But hey, no one with a misdemeanor warrant for graffiti could be dangerous right?

This kind of thing happens all the time which drives me crazy when people complain about SWAT teams and equipment police dept's have as being too powerful and overkill etc.

I never want to hear some Monday Morning QB say again that stopping someone for Jaywalking, a Traffic Ticket or Shoplifting isn't dangerous and the cop shouldn't have escalated it just because the other person refused to follow their commands. Such as show me your hands or drop "whatever" they have in their hands.

 

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

What exactly about making police safer causes the general public to lose their rights?

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

What right did I ask to be violated? I was simply making a point that ANY ARREST for anything can be dangerous, not just the arrest of murderers.

What exactly about making police safer causes the general public to lose their rights?

 

Police saftey does not trump the general public. Do we have to go over this again ? Example after example has been posted of either a swat strike gone wrong or used in a non violent crime .

 

Any murder of a police officer is sad and terrible. But we can't keep adding risk on the general public . My question is does Jumper_Dad now think swat should be used in all situations? If so that is not only insane but without logic.