Cheating death and fighting communism: that is how a fellow officer once described our job. It was meant to be funny, but as time went on it seemed all too true.
I spent more than ten years in law enforcement, all of it on the street in uniform patrol. I've been a patrol officer, instructor, sergeant and lieutenant.
Do not report crimes here. Nothing here should be considered legal advice. All opinions are my own.
Always.
Every department is different on degrees. Some require 4 year degrees, but most do not. A college education is ok, but other than giving you general knowledge, it isn't of much use as a street cop. For promotion, it is requirement for many positions. Frankly, the problem with many new officers is their sense of entitlement and lack of worldly experience. Generally, I have found that new cops that were in the military are far better equipped to be police officers. Most of them have had life experience beyond sitting in a classroom and partying all weekend. At the end of the day, officers are required to seek out the most dangerous elements of society and confront them. When someone starts shooting, everyone runs away except a police officer, who runs toward the danger. Most colleges don't prepare people for that action.
I enjoy working in uniform patrol as I am responding to crimes and emergencies as they are happening, not merely following up on a case later. A detective's life is fairly routine, whereas a patrol cop's day is completely unpredictable. It isn't a simple matter to quantify who wants to be a detective. Some officers make the move because they like taking a major case and running it to its conclusion no matter how long it takes. Other guys make the move simply because of a pay increase or they want the weekends off. A lot of officers transfer over just as a change of scenery. There are a lot of perks for being a detective, but its just not a job thats interested me.
The short answer is no, police officers are not trying to kill anyone when they are forced to shoot them. The long answer: A police officer is authorized to use deadly force only when confronted with an imminent deadly threat, or to prevent/stop a forcible felony (armed robbery, rape, etc). The use of a firearm is deadly force. So, any time a police officer is authorized to shoot someone, it is an emergency situation where the officer or innocent citizen is in immediate danger. The objective is to stop the threat as quickly as possible. Or, in other words, to get the bad guy to stop whatever he is doing to create the dangerous situation. Shooting is a very precise activity. In a stress situation, with people moving and other variables, putting a bullet that is a fraction of an inch wide into any specific location is virtually impossible. So, officers are trained to shoot for the torso, which is the largest target. Additionally, wounds to the torso can cause rapid incapacitation due to blood loss. Wounding someone in the arm is not realistic as it is a very hard target to hit, and it is not likely to stop the violent behavior of the suspect. So, officers are trained to shoot to stop the threat. Death is sometimes a byproduct of that, but it is not the goal.
HR Executive
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
School Teacher
I'd never allow anything that puts the public at risk to happen in my presence. So the idea that I'd let a friend/family member drive if he/she is intoxicated is alien to me. I deal with the consequences of other people's actions all day, and I don't tolerate stupidity around me. The family and friends I associate with aren't involved in criminal activity, so it isn't typically a problem.
Not really. Chances are I'd decline to give consent to an officer for search my vehicle as well. Of course, I wouldn't ask for consent to search a vehicle without some suspicion of criminal activity to begin with. So, the mere act of declining consent wouldn't affect my suspicions one way or another.
There are too many questions and not enough facts for people to comment much. But a couple of things have been discussed by my fellow officers: 1. The media coverage sucks. The media seems more interested in banning guns than they do in reporting facts about the incident. I'm pretty tired of reading ignorant articles that use terms like "high powered magazine" or refer to four guns as an arsenal. The rush to get the bloodiest photos and information (incorrect is ok) on the air is disgusting. 2. Just one off duty cop or lawfully armed citizen sitting in the theater could have stopped the killing. Sure the guy was wearing body armor, but when he is now taking rounds (which will still REALLY hurt), he is going to stop killing the defenseless to either retreat or focus on whoever is shooting at him. Too bad the theater's no gun policy only applied to people who follow the law - not murderers. 3. The Aurora PD had an extremely fast response time. As far as just how the officers handled the situation - they ran toward the shooting rather than away from it. Not much else needs to be said. As the department debriefs all of the officers involved and evaluates the overall response, we may get a feeling of what could have been done better, but I doubt there is anything different they could have done.
-OR-
(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)