Marylanders - Are you fearful that police will not be able to recruit quality candidates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it will have an impact. First, no one thinks it will happen to them, e.g. they don’t think they will make a mistake or use excessive force, and for an overwhelming majority of cops they are correct. Second, it is a steady well paying job (yes it could pay more, but it is still not a bad salary). Third, it is more exciting than other jobs and people who like excitement will always be attracted to it.

Have you seen the recruitment numbers? That academy classes are basically empty. They can’t get candidates already.

Where?

Everywhere. There has been a serious and long-standing recruitment challenge, and it's gotten much worse in the past year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say to kill them. When the same offenders continue to rob, steal and carjack to be released to commit crimes again, then the system in place isn't working. They need to be stopped before innocent victims who are not criminals get killed by repeat criminals. I think most Americans would agree.

They need to be stopped BY WHOM?

Not by random off-duty police officers with no authority, shooting guns in condo parking lots.

What is your suggestion?

My suggestion is that they be stopped by on-duty police officers with authority, who don't use their guns for property crimes.

By asking them to stop? With a canine? How?

Why are you asking random anonymous posters on an internet message board? Shouldn't police officers know how to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say to kill them. When the same offenders continue to rob, steal and carjack to be released to commit crimes again, then the system in place isn't working. They need to be stopped before innocent victims who are not criminals get killed by repeat criminals. I think most Americans would agree.

They need to be stopped BY WHOM?

Not by random off-duty police officers with no authority, shooting guns in condo parking lots.

What is your suggestion?

My suggestion is that they be stopped by on-duty police officers with authority, who don't use their guns for property crimes.

By asking them to stop? With a canine? How?

Why are you asking random anonymous posters on an internet message board? Shouldn't police officers know how to do this?

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

PP here. I'm not excusing that at all. I had posted in response to a comment--maybe yours--that said such crimes should be stopped by on duty police officers and no guns. Just wondering how anyone thinks that's a workable plan for the on duty policemen, except to let criminals do what they're intending to do--steal and carjack from innocent people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

PP here. I'm not excusing that at all. I had posted in response to a comment--maybe yours--that said such crimes should be stopped by on duty police officers and no guns. Just wondering how anyone thinks that's a workable plan for the on duty policemen, except to let criminals do what they're intending to do--steal and carjack from innocent people.

So you're saying that it's imposssible for police officers to stop car thieves, unless they're allowed to shoot the car thieves? And you think you're DEFENDING the police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

PP here. I'm not excusing that at all. I had posted in response to a comment--maybe yours--that said such crimes should be stopped by on duty police officers and no guns. Just wondering how anyone thinks that's a workable plan for the on duty policemen, except to let criminals do what they're intending to do--steal and carjack from innocent people.

So you're saying that it's imposssible for police officers to stop car thieves, unless they're allowed to shoot the car thieves? And you think you're DEFENDING the police?

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

PP here. I'm not excusing that at all. I had posted in response to a comment--maybe yours--that said such crimes should be stopped by on duty police officers and no guns. Just wondering how anyone thinks that's a workable plan for the on duty policemen, except to let criminals do what they're intending to do--steal and carjack from innocent people.

So you're saying that it's imposssible for police officers to stop car thieves, unless they're allowed to shoot the car thieves? And you think you're DEFENDING the police?

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No suggestions from you, only criticism of others. Got it. Just fyi, this forum is filled with anonymous posters making commemts, asking questions, venting, sharing news that's already on other sites, etc. Welcome to DCUM!😀

Yes, I'm going to criticize the person who, while off duty, in a jurisdiction where he had no authority, shot at a car because he thought the people in it were stealing in it, and killed two of them. You know who else is criticizing that person? The Takoma Park chief of police, and the county state's attorney who charged him with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

If you're trying to defend the police, "random people ought to be able to shoot other people in parking lots in order to maintain law and order!" ain't it. It merely demonstrates your very low expectations of police officers' abilities and actions.

PP here. I'm not excusing that at all. I had posted in response to a comment--maybe yours--that said such crimes should be stopped by on duty police officers and no guns. Just wondering how anyone thinks that's a workable plan for the on duty policemen, except to let criminals do what they're intending to do--steal and carjack from innocent people.

So you're saying that it's imposssible for police officers to stop car thieves, unless they're allowed to shoot the car thieves? And you think you're DEFENDING the police?

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

Good news for criminals! Bad news for victims! The ways they're allowed to deal with criminals in some situations aren't effective AT ALL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

Good news for criminals! Bad news for victims! The ways they're allowed to deal with criminals in some situations aren't effective AT ALL.

Your lack of confidence in the police amazes me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

Good news for criminals! Bad news for victims! The ways they're allowed to deal with criminals in some situations aren't effective AT ALL.

Your lack of confidence in the police amazes me.

Oh, it's not a lack of confidence in the police. It's an awareness that the political climate in some areas gives more latitude to criminals and little sympathy for innocent victims. One only has to read the levels of increasing crime in certain cities, along with the lenient policies of those cities' leaders that favor criminals.

[Anonymous]

No. People don't seem worried about attracting good teaching candidates, so I'm not worried about attracting police candidates. It will be an improvement if they stop recruiting facists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

Good news for criminals! Bad news for victims! The ways they're allowed to deal with criminals in some situations aren't effective AT ALL.

Your lack of confidence in the police amazes me.

Oh, it's not a lack of confidence in the police. It's an awareness that the political climate in some areas gives more latitude to criminals and little sympathy for innocent victims. One only has to read the levels of increasing crime in certain cities, along with the lenient policies of those cities' leaders that favor criminals.

No, it's lack of confidence in the police. You seem to believe that, if police aren't allowed to shoot people, attack people with dogs, etc., then they can't do their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say they had to shoot thieves at random. They do need some way to apprehend them. Maybe canines? Soft words ain't gonna deter a thief.

Good news! They have ways! If you want to know what some of those ways are, maybe try asking a police officer.

Good news for criminals! Bad news for victims! The ways they're allowed to deal with criminals in some situations aren't effective AT ALL.

Your lack of confidence in the police amazes me.

Oh, it's not a lack of confidence in the police. It's an awareness that the political climate in some areas gives more latitude to criminals and little sympathy for innocent victims. One only has to read the levels of increasing crime in certain cities, along with the lenient policies of those cities' leaders that favor criminals.

No, it's lack of confidence in the police. You seem to believe that, if police aren't allowed to shoot people, attack people with dogs, etc., then they can't do their job.

Have a great life in your fantasy land. Hopefully, you will not suffer a tragic brutal carjacking like Mr. Anwar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Have a great life in your fantasy land. Hopefully, you will not suffer a tragic brutal carjacking like Mr. Anwar.

Why do you hate the police so much?