they dont get paid to get shot at.....

"They are there to protect society, and they have a very difficult job to do," he said. "They're putting themselves in jeopardy on a regular basis... they don't get paid to get shot at."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/14-year-sentence-angers-police-leadership-51385742.html


umm correct me if I am wrong.. but thats EXACTLY what we pay them for. To stop the bad guys (who may or may not have weapons) from committing crimes.

meanwhile back in the real world...

I think we all would be much happier if they could not apply for parole at 1/3 served... but I guess the cops only get upset enough to make a stink about the crap when its one of their own.

Let me be very clear.

ALL violent crimes should carry mandatory minimums with no chance of parole. You are sentenced to 5 years... you get 5 years. Maybe then we will start seeing judges handing out proper time when they dont have to "consider" any crap.

Nope, don't believe that they are paid to be shot at. They are there to enforce the laws, maintain peace and order, serve and protect, but not to be shot at. That may happen during the course of their job, but thats not what they're paid for.

i think they have a little more leeway to make a stink about this one because it involves cops being shot at.

the typical violent crimes they cant necessarily comment on or make a stink about because they are not the victims. just my theory anyways.

if cops get paid to be shot at, they are WAY underpaid.

The cops I have talked to do want to talk out more but are not allowed to per there contract and the union who doe,s their speaking for them . And did for the Anderson shooting the Cheif can talk but is also limited .

Gotta disagree with you Dean. They don't get paid to get shot at.

I was expecting Anderson to get 5 years. Nice to see he got more.

Mantha wrote:...They don't get paid to get shot at.

Then why do we give them guns?

Of course they get paid to get shot at.

yup we hope everyday that they dont get shot at, but that is indeed one of the things we pay them for.

JTF wrote:

Mantha wrote:...They don't get paid to get shot at.

Then why do we give them guns?

Of course they get paid to get shot at.

We give them guns so they can use deadly force to protect us and themselves, not to pose as targets.

Freeman wrote:

JTF wrote:

Mantha wrote:...They don't get paid to get shot at.

Then why do we give them guns?

Of course they get paid to get shot at.

We give them guns so they can use deadly force to protect us and themselves, not to pose as targets.

This is true...but we give them bullet-protective vests so that they can put their bodies between the bad guys and the innocent and the bullets that may be flying.

Where do you folks get this line of thinking? Body armour and firearms are tools of their job, how in the hell does that translate into the idea that they are supposed to be targets for bad guys? Too much TV, guys.

You give a guy a hammer, you expect him to build something.

You give a guy a tank of air & some fins, you expect him to dive in the water.

You give a guy a bullet-proof vest & a gun, you expect him to defend something or someone.

AGEsAces wrote:You give a guy a hammer, you expect him to build something.

You give a guy a tank of air & some fins, you expect him to dive in the water.

You give a guy a bullet-proof vest & a gun, you expect him to defend something or someone.

Exactly, defend someone, but to be dleiberately exposed to gunfire, no.

The army gave me a rifle, and expected me to do a job, and yes, i might get shot at, but thats not what I was paid to do either.

AGEsAces wrote:You give a guy a hammer, you expect him to build something.

You give a guy a tank of air & some fins, you expect him to dive in the water.

You give a guy a bullet-proof vest & a gun, you expect him to defend something or someone.

We give cops seatbelts in their cruisers - do we pay them to get into car accidents?

Mantha wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:You give a guy a hammer, you expect him to build something.

You give a guy a tank of air & some fins, you expect him to dive in the water.

You give a guy a bullet-proof vest & a gun, you expect him to defend something or someone.

We give cops seatbelts in their cruisers - do we pay them to get into car accidents?

No we don't, we give cops cruisers which have seatbelts in them...and we expect them to use the CRUISERS to defend people & property.

Interesting discussion guys...

It really is how you interpret their role isn't it?

While we don't pay police to get SHOT at per se, we do expect them to put themselves in harm's way if that is what it takes to stop the bad guys right? So in effect we pay these guy's to get shot at. Or stabbed. Or run over.

This is not in any way derogatory or disrespectful. It is a matter of fact...

It's also the reason we (normally) give extra latitude to officers when it comes to honesty, integrity & honour.

Despite the recent issues of a select few individuals...overall the integrity of the police forces are (and always should be) held in the highest regard.

We don't give officers a gun to shoot people...we give them a gun so that they can shoot people if required...and when they use that gun...we should be able to presume it was done with the correct intentions.

Officers are TRAINED to put themselves in "harm's way" if they believe they can protect an innocent person.

For that comment about "watching too many cop shows"...it's actually inaccurate. Most of those shows are glorified to showcase an "individual" or "small team"...all the officers stand around and watch a situation till the "stars" come in and save the day.

In reality...many of those officers would be working together on their own, or under direction from superiors to resolve situations...and if nobody else was around...they would (and should) be acting on their own to either contain or eliminate a problem.

I don't blame the police for being upset. 14 years is right for the offense, but the shooter should serve 14 years , not our 84% discount. Just cause the shooter is from the North End that discount should be left for non violent crimes. Our system gets these dangerous people back out way too soon.