Monday, October 7, 2013

Only the police should have guns (Part XXXIX)

"Off-duty cop fired gun at driver who irritated him".
There were three people in the Toyota, including a two-year-old child...

8 comments:

  1. It's at the point where I really don't trust law enforcement any more. There are way too many loose cannons out there, not to mention the corrupt ones.

    That's above and beyond the disturbing trend of police forces being militarized, and cops being trained to view our communities as battlefields.

    I know there are good men and women in law enforcement. I just wish there were more of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...Echevarria claimed he was trying to shoot the tires of the Toyota to prevent it from fleeing the scene.

    What happened to the billion rounds the DHS got, for target practice?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Evidently this particular cop has had problems in the past. So why is he still on the job?

    ReplyDelete
  4. So why is he still on the job?

    He's a Democrat?

    And Hispanic. Wouldn't want to appear raaaacist!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cops protect each other, Rebecca, to the point of criminality.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Someone elsewhere just pointed out, what I vaguely knew, that police are civilians.

    Yet now I see all over the 'net journalists refer to police versus 'civilians'. Terminology tends to start in the US these days, but it's spread all over the world now.

    When did police start to see themselves as part of the military?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sadly, Bruce, the militarization of the police started with the creation of the SWAT forces. But it really ramped up after the 2001 terrorist attacks, with a deluge of Federal funds and surplus military gear. Both of which created a certain amount of dependency on the Federal feeding trough.

    And the Feds most assuredly have a "us versus them" attitude. It was inevitable that the attitude would trickle down.

    ReplyDelete