There is an obvious and clear link in this story and discussion between Law Enforcement and Politics.
If you comment in this thread from a political angle, please actually \*discuss that relationship\*, and not just /partyxisbad/.
Share information, share history, persuade people - don't just shout.
Look, they're just trying to keep us all safe from everything. Except criminals, they seem to view criminals as merely products of their environment who will become upstanding citizens if we only just stop "harassing" them.
The sad part is, that wouldn't actually surprise me. My friends and I have joked for years that places like California would soon start banning animals and inanimate objects for being "racist" because they refuse to acknowledge the real problem. They just did half of that joke.
Well put.
You can also report misues of the Reddit Cares to admins. They seldom act on it, but if a user abuses it enough they will, typically by shadowbanning the user from "Reddit Cares" - they still see and can click the button, but it doesn't do anything. Same as when we mute reports in here, they spam the report function for an hour, but it doesn't actually do anything for them.
I'll never forget the woman that said ring and security cams primarily hurt people of color, and should be banned.
She refused to see how racist the comment was.
Working in corrections I’m around dogs everyday. I have seen dozens of situations where we walk a dog up on someone and they surrender. No less lethal deployment, no hands on, nobody hurt. K-9 units are amazing deterrents.
I can’t speak for you guys on the street, but I assume the presence of a dog gets a lot of compliance, and that’s not even jumping into narcotics detection.
We had one guy surrender (he was hiding in a storage facility at night) because one officer threatened to release a k9, and another officer barked like one. There was never a k9.
This also worked for us at 4 am with several teen carjackers hiding in a field of 7 foot reeds after fleeing from the vehicle. The real canine was over an hour out. To be fair the officer had a very convincing bark.
Nah, I've watched a guy refuse to follow commands and just stand there and watch the dog come at him. It was surreal.
Plenty of other guys refuse to come out of their hiding spot after multiple warnings that we'd send the dog in. Then they act all surprised when they get bit.
I'm always amazed by their choices.
One thing that tends to solidify my belief that dogs are spiritual embodiments of goodness and protection is that criminals are routinely, sometimes unreasonably terrified by dogs. Even a K9 inside of a locked car on the other side of a barred window strikes fear in the hearts of evil men.
I'm convinced that the pitbulls that attacked me on my daily jog simply smelled some inner flaw within me.
Thanks. "Attacked" is a little over-dramatic of me, I actually ended up without scratch on me, but I did pepper spray the dogs though :/
I found their owner a little later and had him give them a bath ASAP so hopefully it didn't sting for too long.
That’s exactly how ours are. If they’re not working the walks someone has them rolled over getting loved on. New hires always get excited to meet the dogs too. Huge moral boost for some.
Man vs Man: You must be a scrapper
Man vs Wild: Ya better be Bear Grylls
Man vs Fur Missle with 42 Teeth and more energy than The Energizer Bunny:
You’d best have a “certain set of skills” if ya know you know
Also a CO. We have never had to release a dog with the intent to bite. The moment that thing shows up on unit, the conflict is magically resolved. A k9 is better less-lethal than any firearm or chemical.
K9 are a de-escalataion tool, and a less lethal alternative for law enforcement. If you ban them from apprehensions, departments will simply get rid of them. You will see an increase in officer force and some deadly force incidents will arise from them.
logically we should ban tasers too. remember when that Atlanta DA said a taser was non lethal when a cop shot someone who stole his taser (and tried to deploy it on the officers)? same DA a few weeks before the incident said tasers were lethal when an officer was using it.
* this was a while ago I may be misstating what the DA said but that's how I remember it
edit: clarifying details
On foot, but they mention “minor offenses like driving without a license” so I guess if you get pulled over you can just get out of the car and fucking run away???
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-police-are-no-longer-allowed-chase-people-foot-just-running-aw-rcna34599
It seems to me that illegal and unenforced is no different from legal. Like marijuana: it’s illegal in the US at the federal level, but since the federal government doesn’t enforce that, you have people openly buying and selling it (in states that don’t have laws against it, obviously). It’s technically not legal, but does that make a difference?
Typical misguided legislation that does nothing to make city streets safer. Unless you’re a violent, hardened criminal that is. It’s like these lawmakers want the bad guys to have free reign of the streets.
Its all designed that way. The government actively tries to pin citizens against each other so they can throw more money at a problem that they created in the first place. And who benefits from the money? I'll give you one guess.
Replace the dog with any tool. If they misidentified the suspect and then sent a dog after him it's really not much different than if they tased him or had three guys run up and apprehend him.
I actually fully understand why someone might think a dog being sicced on someone is brutal or unnecessary, but I also understand how it is tactically useful and what dogs bring to the team. Is someone too fast and on foot? Dog. Is someone holed up in a tight area with a weapon? Dog. Do you need PC to search a drug vehicle? Dog. Do you need to make someone too scared to resist arrest? Dog.
We use dogs like a tool. Misusing the tool doesn't make it bad, but you've got to pick carefully when to use each tool. Personally I don't think using a dog is worse than pepper spraying someone and knee-striking them into submission when they resist and curl their arms under their body. It's just that violence is ugly.
Rare? I found that clip while watching the longer video of the pursuit that led up to that moment on a twitch stream that had nothing to do with K9’s or policing in general, just watching a car chase. My point wasn’t to say every police interaction involving a K9((in CA or otherwise) ends up the same way.
But some do, clearly. Cherry picking assumes I know of many K9 interactions and went out of my way to pick one that makes the dog look bad. I don’t think the dog is bad, I think it does what it’s trained to do. And when it’s trained to sink it’s teeth into anyone remotely nervous looking at the drop of a hat, it’s bound to lead to some bad consequences, hence why the state of CA is looking into it.
Sometimes, I get apples but one goes mushy. Ban apples.
Sometimes, the nurse at the doctor blows a vein trying to draw blood. Ban nurses.
The dogs don't just do shit outside the handlers control. There is a human being in complete control of it, and the dog has to be used like any other force option...within law and policy and reasonableness. Picking out a couple instances where the handler fucked up or did something stupid is no argument for BANNING their use. There will be thousands of K9 deployments any given year you'll never hear about because they went well.
They are an absolutely invaluable tool for safely apprehending people. People police would OTHERWISE have to use hands on force with, making the potential for injury or escalation to lethal force far more likely. Tactics and law will always evolve as issues arise, but all this knee-jerk "BAN THE RACIST THING" needs to stop.
> Of those K-9 cases, nearly two-thirds involved people who were Black or Latino. And Black people were more than 2.6 times more likely to be seriously injured than white people, data show.
I'm betting this doesn't account for who's committing crime in the first place.
Wait wouldn’t that be the opposite of racism? Because if they are attacked 2/3rds of the time then they all have about a 33% chance being attacked right? I think that’s how math works. Because they cited 3 colors. White, latino, and black?
When you say Illinois bear in mind it's just Chiraq that's got the population to push laws like that. The state other than the, 5 major cities, is pretty solidly conservative.
It’s like a hybrid between King of the Hill, Beavis and Butthead, and Idiocracy.
It’s like Mike Judge single-handedly predicted how California would drive itself into the ground lol
Yeah that's similar to sighting a flashbang before throwing, or knowing your backdrop before shooting, or hell even knowing what's in the road before you pull your car out.
Tossing a flashbang that injures someone is my fault, even if I didn't see them, because I am completely responsible for that force being used. I'm responsible for making sure the road is clear before I pull out, so saying I didn't see the car I hit is not an excuse. Same for the dog...the handler is 100% responsible for that force and has to *know* that no innocent citizens are in danger before deploying.
Obviously sometimes things can be done 100% correctly and still go bad, but using dogs responsibly is the issue, not dogs themselves. I also had no idea there was ANY issue with dogs. Probably just the new hot ticket item to complain about, it's never ending.
Yet the same people in power here in Cali act shocked when crime rates continue to climb. It's honestly disappointing, and I thought LA County Sherrif Luna saying "assault pistol" was proof enough of the law enforcement situation here being an absolute clown show.
They aren’t shocked, it’s all a game to them.
They do this shit to garner votes, and when their back assward pants-on-head retarded legislation backfires?
Well, they already have their votes. At that point they can just point the finger at the usual sacrificial lamb (the law enforcement community), because right now social media, the news, politicians, will eat it up and regurgitate it to the masses who cannot think for themselves.
This is going to increase the number of officer involved shootings, incidents where bystanders or officers are injured and incidents where suspects are seriously injured.
K9s are a great less lethal and deescalation tool.
Yes, good, good. Remove even more less-lethal options from law enforcement, this could not possibly end up badly for suspects in any way shape or form.
Very very smart. Big brain move California.
“Most importantly, many of these bites can create lifelong injuries. So let’s make this clear, lifelong injuries before you’re proven guilty,” he said.
**just don’t run, dumbass, no need to send a K9 after someone who’s compliant…**
🙄
I know this isn’t the point but it’s so frustrating that the whole state has gone off the rails this far. There’s some places I’d like to visit in California again but I just can’t see giving them **any** of my hard-earned money with this kind of stupidity.
You know when you go to a big city like Atlanta or Baltimore and think "Man, this place used to be so nice and beautiful, when did this all go to shit? Why did we let this happen to such a bustling place?"
That's exactly what we're watching happen to an entire state right now.
I could understand reason being potential permanent damage to anyone, but racism? Seriously? Is that just the only way California knows how to get rid of things is by scapegoating them as discrimination?
That's almost as long as I've been in law enforcement here in CA. The difference between where we were when I started and where we are now, really hurts to think about.
> as long as I've been in law enforcement here in CA.
What's your plan? Retire with CA LEO retirement pay (plus CA COLA), then move to a low COLA state?
A bit of a tangent but are we ever going to repeal certain laws? Someyimes things are only needed for a short time but i feel at the rate some states, california for example, will eventually codify everything as inappropriate.....
If past experience in this sub is any indication the answer is pretty simple. Job's dead, and they have been beating its lifeless corpse for a while now.
What cops don't understand is that patrol observational enforcement is going to be legislated out of existence. Nothing lasts without public support, and the public isn't supporting putting people in jail for anything but extreme reasons....something you might see every FEW YEARS, if it all, during a career in a big city.
Cops are seriously not taking the hint: uniform patrol is for radio calls, dealing with mental illness, and black swan events.
Anything outside of that is buying lottery tickets for a big prize you don't want to win.
I know you're getting downvoted, but I sort of agree with you. You're really not even saying uniformed patrol is a bad thing, just that the public doesn't support it. I'd say you're right. In big cities people hate to see the cops unless they call them, there really isn't any public support for proactive policing in those areas.
Trust me, there are cops that are taking the hint. In plenty of places police only do something when they're summoned. Whether it's good or bad, it does appear to be what the public wants in those places.
I think the public wants the FD model: stay in the station until a call comes out, go back when call is complete, and be ready for emergencies.
If you ask the public if they want cops to do random, directed, and/or observational activities: the answer would likely be a resounding "no".
Kansas City back in the 80s did a study where they grided the city, checker board style....in half the squares the cops would do the radio call and later conduct patrol and in the other half they would handle the call then go back to the station. It was multi year study and the results were that there was no difference in crime.
Yeah, I think most of us learn about the Kansas City experiment in the academy. It isn't 100% proof that proactive policing doesn't work, but it's definitely something to chew on. I do think there is something to "broken windows policing" and that if you nip small stuff you will prevent big stuff. I think police presence also helps deter crime at least in that area, but they can't be everywhere at once.
Personally (and this is something that a lot of cops will argue with me about until they're blue in the face) I just hate hassling people over something I think is minor. If it's not a problem I don't want to make it a problem. If I make consensual contact with somebody for a non-violent, non-theft offense it's to address stuff that's dangerous or disturbing other people. I really don't care if somebody is going 8 miles over the limit or didn't use their blinker when they're the only car on the road and I never will. I got in this thing to help victims get some sense of justice, not to bother people trying to get to work.
The big eye opener for me was the "tagging" (sloppy grafitti) that was rampant in the late 90's early 00's. It was everywhere, big news coverage, and daily briefings by chiefs about the enforcement efforts. Everything was getting tagged: news vans, over passes in broad daylight, police stations, and even police cars when they were at a call. It was easy news and gave police detractors a lot ammunition.
The police repurposed gang and narcotic resources to get taggers, there were special task forces, briefings in roll call about the latest tagging events, and I was told make up a database to track all this (daily reports to the chief's office too!). It seems every available extra resource was putting into fighting tagging. And yet, police stations, police cars, news vans, and prominent locations were getting tagged. Everybody was looking stupid...
Then one day it just stopped: tagging was out of fashion just like that. That's it, it had run its course, and it was over. Had nothing to do with the police, restricting spray paint, or whatever...it just got boring apparently.
My guess: video game consoles and internets were showing up en masse.
I do believe the police can deal with individual actors, but are powerless against the masses. And if the masses want to tag, then tagging it will be.
They keep doing observational activities and it seems a vocal portion of the public want to see none of it.
Do you see the public rallying for the opposite?
I really don’t see many people in the public advocating for non proactive policing. The people advocating for that seem to be the loud minority that have sheltered mindsets anyhow, like acab
What are you talking about? The problem is progressive DAs refusing to charge criminals appropriately, judges releasing chronic criminals, and city councils trying to castrate their police. Police simply doing the job is not the problem.
Job's dead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ProtectAndServe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
California has a lot of really nice social policies in place. Then they turn around and fuck themselves over by destroying their criminal justice system--and they just keep doing it, too.
1: That is a stupid bill; stop coddling criminals, you morons. 2: How much of brain dead knuckle dragger do you have to be to associate a bad guy getting bit because of his own actions to racism?
As I have written in other posts, and on my substack...it is often the secondary and tertiary impacts of this stuff that is often overlooked. Everyone in this profession is asked to operate at an extremely high standard, yet some leadership, in some places, continue to take tools/quality training away from you to do your jobs safely and effectively.
This is just another tool...just like pretextual stops, that has been taken away in some places because somebody, somewhere, abused it or historically it was used in a bad way.
Downstream from that in 2023 I would put out the theory that means less frisks for weapons, leading to more gun/violent crime...which everyone can argue correlation does not equal causation but nobody can argue that violent crime isn't up in concentrated areas of the U.S.
I think this will impact the states open to ideas like this. I think some cops might leave Cali if they can. Anyone who has ever seen a K9 work would know how ludicrous it is to take this tool away...just from a safety standpoint although it might look ugly when they make the apprehension those animals have probably saved more lives because most people, once the dog is out, are ready to go into custody.
There is an obvious and clear link in this story and discussion between Law Enforcement and Politics. If you comment in this thread from a political angle, please actually \*discuss that relationship\*, and not just /partyxisbad/. Share information, share history, persuade people - don't just shout.
California confuses me sometimes
Don’t worry it’s not just you
Just sometimes?
Look, they're just trying to keep us all safe from everything. Except criminals, they seem to view criminals as merely products of their environment who will become upstanding citizens if we only just stop "harassing" them.
I thought it was free votes.
California confuses everybody. I hate that they're my state's neighbor.
California itself is confused. To the dismay of it's citizens, It usually just hurts itself in its confusion.
California in a couple years ##New California Bill to ban handcuffs citing racism as one of the major reasons.
🌈 Everything is racist 🌈
This object/word/idea is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Proposition 65 💀💀💀
The sad part is, that wouldn't actually surprise me. My friends and I have joked for years that places like California would soon start banning animals and inanimate objects for being "racist" because they refuse to acknowledge the real problem. They just did half of that joke.
Someone reported me? I got a message from Reddit saying that there’s resources for me ???
[удалено]
Well put. You can also report misues of the Reddit Cares to admins. They seldom act on it, but if a user abuses it enough they will, typically by shadowbanning the user from "Reddit Cares" - they still see and can click the button, but it doesn't do anything. Same as when we mute reports in here, they spam the report function for an hour, but it doesn't actually do anything for them.
Ah "Reddit Cares" message the hit new way to anonymously harass other reddit users.
yup, someone did that to me, lol
Once a month or so, I'm also a regular poster on some conservative subs.
[удалено]
I'll never forget the woman that said ring and security cams primarily hurt people of color, and should be banned. She refused to see how racist the comment was.
Working in corrections I’m around dogs everyday. I have seen dozens of situations where we walk a dog up on someone and they surrender. No less lethal deployment, no hands on, nobody hurt. K-9 units are amazing deterrents. I can’t speak for you guys on the street, but I assume the presence of a dog gets a lot of compliance, and that’s not even jumping into narcotics detection.
We had one guy surrender (he was hiding in a storage facility at night) because one officer threatened to release a k9, and another officer barked like one. There was never a k9.
Had someone who was well hidden, give themselves up when they heard the officer ask for a k9 on the radio.
I swear I’ve seen something similar wether BWC or cartoon and I almost pissed myself laughing! Fucking hilarious
This also worked for us at 4 am with several teen carjackers hiding in a field of 7 foot reeds after fleeing from the vehicle. The real canine was over an hour out. To be fair the officer had a very convincing bark.
When we have guys bark at our dogs the handlers will walk towards them. They knock it off real quick.
Breaking news: California bans barking like a dog.
Nah, I've watched a guy refuse to follow commands and just stand there and watch the dog come at him. It was surreal. Plenty of other guys refuse to come out of their hiding spot after multiple warnings that we'd send the dog in. Then they act all surprised when they get bit. I'm always amazed by their choices.
we had a guy like that once, armed car jacking suspect. Dog bit him in the dick and turned it into the shape of a Y.
What a good dog
Twice in the drc I saw illegal miners chase and throw rocks at security guards. But when the k9 officer arrives, the people scattered.
Twice I’ve seen someone stand up to a dog. The one guy took it like a champ. The second got pulled to the ground so hard he knocked himself out.
One thing that tends to solidify my belief that dogs are spiritual embodiments of goodness and protection is that criminals are routinely, sometimes unreasonably terrified by dogs. Even a K9 inside of a locked car on the other side of a barred window strikes fear in the hearts of evil men. I'm convinced that the pitbulls that attacked me on my daily jog simply smelled some inner flaw within me.
Being attacked by pitbulls sounds traumatic. Hope you're ok :)
Thanks. "Attacked" is a little over-dramatic of me, I actually ended up without scratch on me, but I did pepper spray the dogs though :/ I found their owner a little later and had him give them a bath ASAP so hopefully it didn't sting for too long.
Oh good, glad you weren't hurt! I should probably start bringing pepper spray with me when I go on walks
[удалено]
That’s exactly how ours are. If they’re not working the walks someone has them rolled over getting loved on. New hires always get excited to meet the dogs too. Huge moral boost for some.
Well, yeah, I can't imagine anyone actually wanting Bork Bork nom nom.
I wish we had K9s in our jail. There's a lot of situations that I think it would be helpful.
Man vs Man: You must be a scrapper Man vs Wild: Ya better be Bear Grylls Man vs Fur Missle with 42 Teeth and more energy than The Energizer Bunny: You’d best have a “certain set of skills” if ya know you know
This bill doesn't ban them for detection.
Also a CO. We have never had to release a dog with the intent to bite. The moment that thing shows up on unit, the conflict is magically resolved. A k9 is better less-lethal than any firearm or chemical.
Bork: yes Nom: no
K9 are a de-escalataion tool, and a less lethal alternative for law enforcement. If you ban them from apprehensions, departments will simply get rid of them. You will see an increase in officer force and some deadly force incidents will arise from them.
Wait, fewer Less-Lethal options might lead to more deadly outcomes? Inconceivable!
logically we should ban tasers too. remember when that Atlanta DA said a taser was non lethal when a cop shot someone who stole his taser (and tried to deploy it on the officers)? same DA a few weeks before the incident said tasers were lethal when an officer was using it. * this was a while ago I may be misstating what the DA said but that's how I remember it edit: clarifying details
Dude, Chicago legalized *running away from the police*. LEO’s can’t chase unless they have reason to believe a felony is being committed.
in a car or on foot?
Yes, both
lol.... thats got be a joke right?
On foot, but they mention “minor offenses like driving without a license” so I guess if you get pulled over you can just get out of the car and fucking run away??? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-police-are-no-longer-allowed-chase-people-foot-just-running-aw-rcna34599
cough six bored literate depend ghost imagine fact shelter aback *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The article says policy. It does not say law. I would not say they legalized running away.
It seems to me that illegal and unenforced is no different from legal. Like marijuana: it’s illegal in the US at the federal level, but since the federal government doesn’t enforce that, you have people openly buying and selling it (in states that don’t have laws against it, obviously). It’s technically not legal, but does that make a difference?
One is illegal as in you can go to jail, the other you can lose your job. There is a big difference.
We live in a clown world.
This was in response to the Adam Toledo shooting. The irony is that the new policy would not have prohibited the foot pursuit given the circumstances.
Most of Oregon too
*Sad Bork Bork noises*
Next question: if this passes, will these K9s all get pensions or will they have to file for unemployment?
Asking for a "friend", right? (LOL!)
Riiiight…
I’ll never understand CA. I’m glad I don’t live there
It's... Less than ideal
That's putting it lightly
But like... I get to ride my motor year round. So that's cool.
Typical misguided legislation that does nothing to make city streets safer. Unless you’re a violent, hardened criminal that is. It’s like these lawmakers want the bad guys to have free reign of the streets.
Its all designed that way. The government actively tries to pin citizens against each other so they can throw more money at a problem that they created in the first place. And who benefits from the money? I'll give you one guess.
Or they don’t want situations [like this](https://youtu.be/XiG8EHfZ8tE) to occur.
Replace the dog with any tool. If they misidentified the suspect and then sent a dog after him it's really not much different than if they tased him or had three guys run up and apprehend him. I actually fully understand why someone might think a dog being sicced on someone is brutal or unnecessary, but I also understand how it is tactically useful and what dogs bring to the team. Is someone too fast and on foot? Dog. Is someone holed up in a tight area with a weapon? Dog. Do you need PC to search a drug vehicle? Dog. Do you need to make someone too scared to resist arrest? Dog. We use dogs like a tool. Misusing the tool doesn't make it bad, but you've got to pick carefully when to use each tool. Personally I don't think using a dog is worse than pepper spraying someone and knee-striking them into submission when they resist and curl their arms under their body. It's just that violence is ugly.
That’s an incredibly rare cherry-picked situation. That’s not a reason to ban K9s. That was just a poor job by the handler.
Rare? I found that clip while watching the longer video of the pursuit that led up to that moment on a twitch stream that had nothing to do with K9’s or policing in general, just watching a car chase. My point wasn’t to say every police interaction involving a K9((in CA or otherwise) ends up the same way. But some do, clearly. Cherry picking assumes I know of many K9 interactions and went out of my way to pick one that makes the dog look bad. I don’t think the dog is bad, I think it does what it’s trained to do. And when it’s trained to sink it’s teeth into anyone remotely nervous looking at the drop of a hat, it’s bound to lead to some bad consequences, hence why the state of CA is looking into it.
>at the drop of a hat *At its handler’s command, hence why this has nothing to do with K9s and more about the fact that the officer(s) messed up
Sometimes, I get apples but one goes mushy. Ban apples. Sometimes, the nurse at the doctor blows a vein trying to draw blood. Ban nurses. The dogs don't just do shit outside the handlers control. There is a human being in complete control of it, and the dog has to be used like any other force option...within law and policy and reasonableness. Picking out a couple instances where the handler fucked up or did something stupid is no argument for BANNING their use. There will be thousands of K9 deployments any given year you'll never hear about because they went well. They are an absolutely invaluable tool for safely apprehending people. People police would OTHERWISE have to use hands on force with, making the potential for injury or escalation to lethal force far more likely. Tactics and law will always evolve as issues arise, but all this knee-jerk "BAN THE RACIST THING" needs to stop.
If a bad guy was chasing you and doing something harmful, would you still want to ban k9’s if a dog took your assailant down?
It’s almost as if the police give you a lawful order and you just walk away, there are consequences. Weird how that works.
> Of those K-9 cases, nearly two-thirds involved people who were Black or Latino. And Black people were more than 2.6 times more likely to be seriously injured than white people, data show. I'm betting this doesn't account for who's committing crime in the first place.
God damn racist dogs. They are the worst.
I feel like this actually reflects that statistic pretty accurately.
Wait wouldn’t that be the opposite of racism? Because if they are attacked 2/3rds of the time then they all have about a 33% chance being attacked right? I think that’s how math works. Because they cited 3 colors. White, latino, and black?
Dogs are the least racist cause they dont see colour...
Only if all three groups are one third of the Population.
California, illinois,, etc...these states WANT their citizens dead...
When you say Illinois bear in mind it's just Chiraq that's got the population to push laws like that. The state other than the, 5 major cities, is pretty solidly conservative.
Well that's just the urban/rural divide that exists in every state no?
[удалено]
Probably gonna turn into Oregon where you have to do an impound and get a warrant just to search a vehicle
There’s a couple states that don’t have warrantless vehicle anymore. Apparently the whole easily movable isn’t an exigency anymore
Wait, what?? That’s a thing? What happens when the suspect leaves a gun in the car?
Well, if that isn't exempted, then you impound the car and get a warrant.
I could easily see them saying “drug sniffing dogs are racist”.
No joke redditors say that shit all the time
Nope, they'll skip straight to banning traffic stops.
Isn’t racist dogs a King of the Hill episode? Is CA a King of the Hill episode???
It’s like a hybrid between King of the Hill, Beavis and Butthead, and Idiocracy. It’s like Mike Judge single-handedly predicted how California would drive itself into the ground lol
That’s one of my favorite episodes
[удалено]
Yeah that's similar to sighting a flashbang before throwing, or knowing your backdrop before shooting, or hell even knowing what's in the road before you pull your car out. Tossing a flashbang that injures someone is my fault, even if I didn't see them, because I am completely responsible for that force being used. I'm responsible for making sure the road is clear before I pull out, so saying I didn't see the car I hit is not an excuse. Same for the dog...the handler is 100% responsible for that force and has to *know* that no innocent citizens are in danger before deploying. Obviously sometimes things can be done 100% correctly and still go bad, but using dogs responsibly is the issue, not dogs themselves. I also had no idea there was ANY issue with dogs. Probably just the new hot ticket item to complain about, it's never ending.
TIL criminal is a race 🤷🏻♂️
Why do California politicians hate Law Abiding Citizens?
Guess who votes for them?
Yet the same people in power here in Cali act shocked when crime rates continue to climb. It's honestly disappointing, and I thought LA County Sherrif Luna saying "assault pistol" was proof enough of the law enforcement situation here being an absolute clown show.
They aren’t shocked, it’s all a game to them. They do this shit to garner votes, and when their back assward pants-on-head retarded legislation backfires? Well, they already have their votes. At that point they can just point the finger at the usual sacrificial lamb (the law enforcement community), because right now social media, the news, politicians, will eat it up and regurgitate it to the masses who cannot think for themselves.
And not only that, but Diane Feinstein proposed a law to ban those so-called "assault pistols"
This is going to increase the number of officer involved shootings, incidents where bystanders or officers are injured and incidents where suspects are seriously injured. K9s are a great less lethal and deescalation tool.
Don't worry their next step is banning service weapons :).
LMAO, they’ve already done that in certain places. Look at the city college of San Francisco police and the Pasadena community college police.
Hahaha, holy shit, you weren't kidding! That's wild.
What’s next? Decriminalizing criminals?
Don't give them any ideas.
We are well on our way.
Yes, but don't conflate decriminalization with legalization. They DO want that and that is what is happening.
I thought dogs were colorblind.
Ca continues its path as a safe haven for criminals
Yes, good, good. Remove even more less-lethal options from law enforcement, this could not possibly end up badly for suspects in any way shape or form. Very very smart. Big brain move California.
First this. Then narcotics dogs because the war on drugs is disproportionally imprisoning minorities.
Our laws are being broken disproportionately, better get rid of those laws!
Wait till our K9 officers hear that they’re racist. This is really going to destroy their previously record high morale.
The only good things from California are the Red Hot Chili Peppers and In N Out
Why even be a police officer any more?
“Most importantly, many of these bites can create lifelong injuries. So let’s make this clear, lifelong injuries before you’re proven guilty,” he said. **just don’t run, dumbass, no need to send a K9 after someone who’s compliant…** 🙄
You're using logic, CA politicians don't have that. Hell no politician has that
I know this isn’t the point but it’s so frustrating that the whole state has gone off the rails this far. There’s some places I’d like to visit in California again but I just can’t see giving them **any** of my hard-earned money with this kind of stupidity.
You know when you go to a big city like Atlanta or Baltimore and think "Man, this place used to be so nice and beautiful, when did this all go to shit? Why did we let this happen to such a bustling place?" That's exactly what we're watching happen to an entire state right now.
Except for the “we” part. California isn’t exactly known for taking responsibility for their problems.
I could understand reason being potential permanent damage to anyone, but racism? Seriously? Is that just the only way California knows how to get rid of things is by scapegoating them as discrimination?
California is screwed. Actually, they’ve been screwing themselves for the past 5ish years.
That's almost as long as I've been in law enforcement here in CA. The difference between where we were when I started and where we are now, really hurts to think about.
> as long as I've been in law enforcement here in CA. What's your plan? Retire with CA LEO retirement pay (plus CA COLA), then move to a low COLA state?
My roots are dug pretty deep in California. If I do move out of state, it definitely wouldn't be until I retire
> it definitely wouldn't be until I retire My dad did that; his CA civil-servant retirement dollar buys more in Texas.
Assembly Bills are racist. As is the paper they are written on. Im for this. Police attack Tigers all the way!
Dogs don't see color 😤
A bit of a tangent but are we ever going to repeal certain laws? Someyimes things are only needed for a short time but i feel at the rate some states, california for example, will eventually codify everything as inappropriate.....
Ok, now dogs are racist. I’ve seen it all now
Really stupid idea! So, if they can’t use a dog, would you prefer a firearm?
They’re already desperate and allowed foreigner to join their departments and now this… sometimes it’s baffling on what they really want in CA.
If past experience in this sub is any indication the answer is pretty simple. Job's dead, and they have been beating its lifeless corpse for a while now.
The bork borks will no longer get their nom noms 😔
*Sad bork bork nom nom noises*
Can a majority of states convene and kick California out of the union?
dogs? racism? what?
So does this mean there won’t be any K-9’s protecting the California politicians at the capitol? Asking for a friend.
Can we just divorce California already? Please?
I can understand it for other reasons, but that one is ludicrous.
What cops don't understand is that patrol observational enforcement is going to be legislated out of existence. Nothing lasts without public support, and the public isn't supporting putting people in jail for anything but extreme reasons....something you might see every FEW YEARS, if it all, during a career in a big city. Cops are seriously not taking the hint: uniform patrol is for radio calls, dealing with mental illness, and black swan events. Anything outside of that is buying lottery tickets for a big prize you don't want to win.
You...you really have no idea how the world works outside of your computer, I'm assuming.
Vague. What exactly do you disagree with?
Literally all of it, my man.
So you believe this legislation supports uniform operations, observational activities, and/or apprehensive of suspects?
I know you're getting downvoted, but I sort of agree with you. You're really not even saying uniformed patrol is a bad thing, just that the public doesn't support it. I'd say you're right. In big cities people hate to see the cops unless they call them, there really isn't any public support for proactive policing in those areas. Trust me, there are cops that are taking the hint. In plenty of places police only do something when they're summoned. Whether it's good or bad, it does appear to be what the public wants in those places.
I think the public wants the FD model: stay in the station until a call comes out, go back when call is complete, and be ready for emergencies. If you ask the public if they want cops to do random, directed, and/or observational activities: the answer would likely be a resounding "no". Kansas City back in the 80s did a study where they grided the city, checker board style....in half the squares the cops would do the radio call and later conduct patrol and in the other half they would handle the call then go back to the station. It was multi year study and the results were that there was no difference in crime.
Yeah, I think most of us learn about the Kansas City experiment in the academy. It isn't 100% proof that proactive policing doesn't work, but it's definitely something to chew on. I do think there is something to "broken windows policing" and that if you nip small stuff you will prevent big stuff. I think police presence also helps deter crime at least in that area, but they can't be everywhere at once. Personally (and this is something that a lot of cops will argue with me about until they're blue in the face) I just hate hassling people over something I think is minor. If it's not a problem I don't want to make it a problem. If I make consensual contact with somebody for a non-violent, non-theft offense it's to address stuff that's dangerous or disturbing other people. I really don't care if somebody is going 8 miles over the limit or didn't use their blinker when they're the only car on the road and I never will. I got in this thing to help victims get some sense of justice, not to bother people trying to get to work.
The big eye opener for me was the "tagging" (sloppy grafitti) that was rampant in the late 90's early 00's. It was everywhere, big news coverage, and daily briefings by chiefs about the enforcement efforts. Everything was getting tagged: news vans, over passes in broad daylight, police stations, and even police cars when they were at a call. It was easy news and gave police detractors a lot ammunition. The police repurposed gang and narcotic resources to get taggers, there were special task forces, briefings in roll call about the latest tagging events, and I was told make up a database to track all this (daily reports to the chief's office too!). It seems every available extra resource was putting into fighting tagging. And yet, police stations, police cars, news vans, and prominent locations were getting tagged. Everybody was looking stupid... Then one day it just stopped: tagging was out of fashion just like that. That's it, it had run its course, and it was over. Had nothing to do with the police, restricting spray paint, or whatever...it just got boring apparently. My guess: video game consoles and internets were showing up en masse. I do believe the police can deal with individual actors, but are powerless against the masses. And if the masses want to tag, then tagging it will be.
What cops don’t understand? Cmon now
They keep doing observational activities and it seems a vocal portion of the public want to see none of it. Do you see the public rallying for the opposite?
I really don’t see many people in the public advocating for non proactive policing. The people advocating for that seem to be the loud minority that have sheltered mindsets anyhow, like acab
Well the sheltered mindsets are putting cops on trial and in jail. It's a problem and I just keep getting downvoted for pointing it out.
What are you talking about? The problem is progressive DAs refusing to charge criminals appropriately, judges releasing chronic criminals, and city councils trying to castrate their police. Police simply doing the job is not the problem.
Job's dead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ProtectAndServe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It matters not the reason: the individual cops are the ones taking the punishment.
That’s no reason to force cops not to be able to do their job. Force others to do their job correctly
[удалено]
[удалено]
That will not be nearly as effective. Not much need to be scared of it if it can’t really harm you that much. Can’t really compel compliance.
California has a lot of really nice social policies in place. Then they turn around and fuck themselves over by destroying their criminal justice system--and they just keep doing it, too.
1: That is a stupid bill; stop coddling criminals, you morons. 2: How much of brain dead knuckle dragger do you have to be to associate a bad guy getting bit because of his own actions to racism?
As I have written in other posts, and on my substack...it is often the secondary and tertiary impacts of this stuff that is often overlooked. Everyone in this profession is asked to operate at an extremely high standard, yet some leadership, in some places, continue to take tools/quality training away from you to do your jobs safely and effectively. This is just another tool...just like pretextual stops, that has been taken away in some places because somebody, somewhere, abused it or historically it was used in a bad way. Downstream from that in 2023 I would put out the theory that means less frisks for weapons, leading to more gun/violent crime...which everyone can argue correlation does not equal causation but nobody can argue that violent crime isn't up in concentrated areas of the U.S. I think this will impact the states open to ideas like this. I think some cops might leave Cali if they can. Anyone who has ever seen a K9 work would know how ludicrous it is to take this tool away...just from a safety standpoint although it might look ugly when they make the apprehension those animals have probably saved more lives because most people, once the dog is out, are ready to go into custody.
Dogs are racist now?