# He messed with the lemon and got the whole meringue



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

Stop me if you've heard this one before. A robber walks into a pizza parlor and puts a gun to the cook's head.



> "When he held the gun to my head, the side of my head was cocked down like this, and I grabbed the gun from his hand.  I grabbed him and threw him back toward the refrigerator, says cook Anthony Trinh.
> 
> After seeing the robber struggle with the cook, the manager grabbed the biggest knife he could find.
> 
> ...



It's amazing that scumbagus maximus is still alive. I suppose that the manager wasn't really thinking of hurting him.


----------



## redfang (Jun 20, 2007)

Hadn't seen it, but way to go to the employees and mgr, kudos.


----------



## jdinca (Jun 20, 2007)

Yet another win for the good guys.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 20, 2007)

This is the second thread in five minutes I've read where the hunter became the hunted.  Anyone else starting to get the feeling that a lot of folks in this country have lost any faith in the power of the "authorities" to protect the average citizen and have decided to take care of themselves?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 20, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> This is the second thread in five minutes I've read where the hunter became the hunted.  Anyone else starting to get the feeling that a lot of folks in this country have lost any faith in the power of the "authorities" to protect the average citizen and have decided to take care of themselves?


Yes and that could be a problem because the average citizen may not know when to quit. LEO's have the training to know when enough is enough (Rodney King case not counting). Supposed the manager had killed the guy or cut him in a vital arterial location and the (would-be) robber had bled to death? The article states that there's no anticipation of charges being filed, that's because the guy lived through his wounds. If he hadn't I think the outcome would be different. 
That citizens are in confidence of LEO's abilities to handle crime is still there, but they're (by majority I think anyway) aware that LEO's can't be everywhere all the time, also it takes time (precious minutes) for the cops to arrive on the scene. So they may (or may not) take matters into their own hands until LEO's can get there and handle the situation. It was at one time that neighborhoods took care of themselves, that time may come again.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 20, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> This is the second thread in five minutes I've read where the hunter became the hunted. Anyone else starting to get the feeling that a lot of folks in this country have lost any faith in the power of the "authorities" to protect the average citizen and have decided to take care of themselves?


 
IMO, the average citizen _should_ take care of h[im|er]self, if the situation allows.  That's up to the person in the situation to assess.  If law and order is strictly handled by law enforcement, the only place you will have law and order is wherever a LEO happens to be standing.


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

Cops are definitely not that well trained. The average guy who goes to the range once a month and makes 100 rounds of once-fired brass is probably a better shot. The guy who goes to a practical martial arts school twice a week is probably as good a fighter. The first twenty hours of LFI-1 will give you a much better understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions of the use of force than a typical defense lawyer let alone your average deputy. And most people who aren't already criminals, drunk, drugged, crazed, enraged or pushed to the edge have a pretty good idea of when it's OK to use force.

Look at the cases mentioned. In one of them the criminal had his gun taken away, got beat up and cut up a little in the process (honestly, as long as the gun was in his hand I would have cut his throat or pithed him like a laboratory frog). Then they dragged him out and left him. In another the kid got the gun away from the bad guy and shot him. In a third the other kid cut a person who had broken into his house and offered violence to him. Maybe he shouldn't have chased him after he left the house, but he didn't cut him down.

There's been a lot of time for CCW laws and their effects to be studied in the US. Every time one is proposed or passed there are dire predictions about "Boot Hill", "blood in the streets", "guns on the streets" and so on. What really happens? The violent crime rate stays the same or goes down slightly. Normal people are pretty good at understanding what is and isn't reasonable in self defense.

Police on the other hand, well, that's a little different. When a cop is accused of a bad shoot he will walk. Unless he's actually doing Mob hits like those two scumbags in the NYPD he will get a review board made up of his brother officers. They will determine that the shooting was justified. He will have plenty of time to be briefed in advance on what to say like "began to lunge" or "furtive movement". The case will probably not go to the Grand Jury. If it does the prosecutor will say things like "The Thin Blue Line" and there won't be an indictment. If there is, he will have an excellent lawyer, his union and the respect of the Court and the community behind him. 

In other words, there's no evidence that the police are better judges of when to use and not use force. They just aren't held to as high a standard as the rest of us. Until they are it's difficult to make a good comparison.

It comes down to a very simple question. Are you a Citizen or a serf? 

A Citizen has the right to defend herself. A serf is not a member of the Warrior Caste and may not arrogate to herself the power their Lord gives them of using force. 

A Citizen, it is understood, has a responsibility to himself and his family. This comes before almost anything else. The serf is a unit of production. If there's a risk that it would cost the Lord and his Warriors too much in danger to the Warriors or a rise in insurance rates he is disposable.

The Citizen's home is her castle. Even the King may not enter without a warrant. When that castle's integrity is violated she has the right and duty to defend it. The same applies to a lesser extent to the place where she earns her living. The serf's hovel belongs to the Lord. Her rights there are no different than they would be on the Lord's highway. 

A Citizen has the duty to "raise the hue and cry" when a crime is committed. He and his fellow Citizens may capture the malefactor and hold him until such time as he may be brought before a magistrate. The serf must leave this sort of thing to the Lord's Warrior Caste.

Which would you rather be, Citizen or serf? I would rather be a Citizen surrounded by other Citizens. If you want to be a serf or a member of the Warrior Caste lording it over serfs that's your prerogative. And I will oppose you to my dying breath.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> Which would you rather be, Citizen or serf? I would rather be a Citizen surrounded by other Citizens. If you want to be a serf or a member of the Warrior Caste lording it over serfs that's your prerogative. And I will oppose you to my dying breath.



Amen.
:highfive:


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

MA-Caver, "Suppose" is not the same thing as "Did". He _*did*_ act correctly. And honestly, you're holding him to an infinitely higher standard than you would hold anyone who carries tin. A cop can kill you if he thinks you're making a "furtive movement" let alone holding a gun to someone's head. By that standard the manager was well within his rights to cut the robber's head clean off. 

I probably would have been a lot more thorough about making sure that he was not a threat and could not access another weapon. And I would be willing to defend that decision in any court of law. He had entered my establishment, put my employees and my wife in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury. He had a deadly weapon which he had shown he was willing to use. I grabbed the nearest tool that came to hand, not a weapon prepared for use on a person (a tip to our friends in the UK) to stop him from killing innocent people and came to the aid of an innocent third party who was engaged in a life-or-death struggle. 

That's about as textbook a justification for the use of deadly force as you are going to find.

If it had been a butcher shop instead of a pizza parlor they probably would have had him gutted, cleaned, boned and wrapped in little plastic trays before they got hold of themselves and stopped acting on professional autopilot. "No Frank! Don't put him in the sausage stuffer!"


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes and that could be a problem because the average citizen may not know when to quit. LEO's have the training to know when enough is enough (Rodney King case not counting). Supposed the manager had killed the guy or cut him in a vital arterial location and the (would-be) robber had bled to death? The article states that there's no anticipation of charges being filed, that's because the guy lived through his wounds. If he hadn't I think the outcome would be different.
> That citizens are in confidence of LEO's abilities to handle crime is still there, but they're (by majority I think anyway) aware that LEO's can't be everywhere all the time, also it takes time (precious minutes) for the cops to arrive on the scene. So they may (or may not) take matters into their own hands until LEO's can get there and handle the situation. It was at one time that neighborhoods took care of themselves, that time may come again.


 
Most cops will tell you there H2H training is a joke, the best cops go and train outside of their deptartments.  I have also seen how laughable some of the stuff they are taught is, some of it can get those cops killed.

 My time as a range officer really brought home how sad most cops shooting skills are and some have no concept of gunfighting whatsoever. Now some  take it upon themselves to take extra training, but the  most dont, right there in my eyes they lose the right to be my  families protectors, I can do a better job.

 As  far as knowing when to quit, using Rodney King as an example of when the cops do wrong is a bad example if you actually have seen the whole tape, not the CNN edit, and even then,King kept trying  to get up, after  being hit with PR-24s and Tazers, he was clearly  on  drugs or psychotic at the time.

 People have a right to defend themselves, and I have real problem with people concerned whether a robbing punk could have been killed, in that situation I would kill the perp, he could never come back  at me  or anyone else ever again.

  If you have not come to terms that you might have to kill an attacker, then martial arts are a waste of your time, go the Ghandi route and be prepared to die.


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

The Gandhi route takes even more courage than fighting. It's a willingness to surrender your own life in a principled way to serve a greater goal. Never confuse it with cowardice. 

Your greater point is spot on. If you can not take responsibility for the really significant things and clearly and affirmatively say "I understand that killing a person has bad consequences. I am willing to do so with a full understanding of what it means," none of this training will amount to a hill of beans. Saying "It's the policeman's job. I can't do it, but they can," is (sorry for the pun) a cop out. In the end you and you alone are responsible for your own life and safety.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

And I have alot of respect for Ghandi, I was making the point that if you are not willing to fight back, and maybe have to go all the way, then you need to take the willing to die route.


----------



## Fang (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> Stop me if you've heard this one before. I suppose that the manager wasn't really thinking of hurting him.


 
That or he didn't want to catch a case. I'm sure its nothing new to anyone but if you're gonna use a blade on someone make it look like it was an accident of some sort or rather a very panicked reaction... If you splay him out neatly like a piece of beef then someones likely to raise an eyebrow.


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2007)

Fang, I'm afraid that that is terrible advice. If you have to use deadly force your self defense claim lies in your ability to articulate your *reasonable* fear, not blind panic. "He had a gun. He had pointed it at someone's head. He still had the gun while they were struggling. I had to stop him before he shot someone," is about as good as it's going to get. If you're going to use extreme measures make sure that the threat is neutralized. Vaguely flailing away just puts you at more risk and you're still using a deadly weapon. 

It would be awfully difficult to say "I picked up the biggest knife, walked over and cut him several times completely by accident." The police won't believe you. When you're interrogated you will slip up. They will quite rightly say that you lied to them to conceal evidence. Oops. A good shoot (so to speak) suddenly becomes a felony. Do not lie to the police. Do not try to conceal or alter evidence. You will end up in a world of hurt.

As always _*know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Be able to explain these things honestly in court*_.


----------



## Fang (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> Fang, I'm afraid that that is terrible advice. If you have to use deadly force your self defense claim lies in your ability to articulate your *reasonable* fear, not blind panic. "He had a gun. He had pointed it at someone's head. He still had the gun while they were struggling. I had to stop him before he shot someone," is about as good as it's going to get. If you're going to use extreme measures make sure that the threat is neutralized. Vaguely flailing away just puts you at more risk and you're still using a deadly weapon.
> 
> It would be awfully difficult to say "I picked up the biggest knife, walked over and cut him several times completely by accident." The police won't believe you. When you're interrogated you will slip up. They will quite rightly say that you lied to them to conceal evidence. Oops. A good shoot (so to speak) suddenly becomes a felony. Do not lie to the police. Do not try to conceal or alter evidence. You will end up in a world of hurt.
> 
> As always _*know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Be able to explain these things honestly in court*_.


 
I never perpetuated 'vaguely flailing away bro.' While I agree that it may be a different 'seed' of advice than you might normally hear and it could even be construed as me being careless or wreckless for putting ideas like that in peoples head I must disagree with your premise of why its not good advice... You also must consider what potential witnesses will see when you scratch your target. 'If you draw your blade, slit the guys throat and pithe him like a laboratory frog.' You 'will' catch a case and the reprimand will have less to do with what the respondants come up with (they're poorly trained in your own opinion anyhow) and will have more to do with what the prosecution forms the battery of their case around, which will be the fact that you completely butchered the assailant (the jist of your own words) into neatly compiled cutlets of meat. My advice may be poor from a couple of perspectives, I never intended to comprise advice of not reacting effectively, I simply don't think that Pitheing him like a laboratory frog is advice that will win you favors in front of a 'jury'... This community deserves the truth, your advice was generally no better than mine... However, it wasn't my intent to trump anyone in particular, least of all someone who knows a bit about knife fighting... Hell I've only ever been stabbbed about four times and I've done nothing really significant offensively with a blade. I don't know where you stand but like I said its not my intent to trump you. It is my intent to provide a workable alternative solution, one that may save the next guy in this community from doing some prison time...Some blade guru's perpetuate the idea that smaller less grossly exagerated movements are better because they conceal from the perspective of the guy watching just what you've done, then you walk away before respondants arive... I don't condone that. What I'm saying is that if you have to scratch someone and stick around to defend your actions for one reason or another then you should make it into something that 'appears' to be less articulate than it actually is, that is my premise completely. The fact is that in 'your' hands a blade is a supreme weapon and I believe it is, so much so that 'you' can and are able of accomplishing the plan I've laid out without going overboard into the realm of the 'Wizard of Gore,' which by the way is a song you might enjoy by a band called Rigor Mortis, search on you tube if you like, enjoy...


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2007)

I'm sorry, but you're still giving terrible advice, and here's why


"I panicked" or "I was in blind fear" trashes a claim of self defense
So does "I picked up the knife and stabbed him several times. It was an accident." The police are not stupid. Not Nobel Prize winners, but definitely not stupid. They know their business, and they're persistent when they think they're being messed with.
You're telling people to lie to the investigating officers. That's not just stupid, it's a serious crime. When they figure it out you are screwed.
"Make it look like" only works if you know how to "make it look like". Watching CSI doesn't cut it. Alter a crime scene? That's a felony or two plus the murder charges you are sure of earning.
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. But alter the crime scene or try amateur theatrics to impress them and it will come back to haunt you big time.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 21, 2007)

Fang said:


> I never perpetuated 'vaguely flailing away bro.' While I agree that it may be a different 'seed' of advice than you might normally hear and it could even be construed as me being careless or wreckless for putting ideas like that in peoples head I must disagree with your premise of why its not good advice... You also must consider what potential witnesses will see when you scratch your target. 'If you draw your blade, slit the guys throat and pithe him like a laboratory frog.' You 'will' catch a case and the reprimand will have less to do with what the respondants come up with (they're poorly trained in your own opinion anyhow) and will have more to do with what the prosecution forms the battery of their case around, which will be the fact that you completely butchered the assailant (the jist of your own words) into neatly compiled cutlets of meat. My advice may be poor from a couple of perspectives, I never intended to comprise advice of not reacting effectively, I simply don't think that Pitheing him like a laboratory frog is advice that will win you favors in front of a 'jury'... This community deserves the truth, your advice was generally no better than mine... However, it wasn't my intent to trump anyone in particular, least of all someone who knows a bit about knife fighting... Hell I've only ever been stabbbed about four times and I've done nothing really significant offensively with a blade. I don't know where you stand but like I said its not my intent to trump you. It is my intent to provide a workable alternative solution, one that may save the next guy in this community from doing some prison time...Some blade guru's perpetuate the idea that smaller less grossly exagerated movements are better because they conceal from the perspective of the guy watching just what you've done, then you walk away before respondants arive... I don't condone that. What I'm saying is that if you have to scratch someone and stick around to defend your actions for one reason or another then you should make it into something that 'appears' to be less articulate than it actually is, that is my premise completely. The fact is that in 'your' hands a blade is a supreme weapon and I believe it is, so much so that 'you' can and are able of accomplishing the plan I've laid out without going overboard into the realm of the 'Wizard of Gore,' which by the way is a song you might enjoy by a band called Rigor Mortis, search on you tube if you like, enjoy...


 

 I remeber Rigor Mortis, they were great!  Saw  them live in 89.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 21, 2007)

Darth, clear some msgs.

The most protective thing the police do is make an appearance.  That's why I hate photo radar.  You put a policeman in uniform with a cruiser out there and everyone slows down, otherwise it's a lucrative money game.  The ambush effect of the photo radar doesn't include demerits either.  It just takes food out of the kids mouth.  The guy shouldn't be speeding, but having an officer in uniform will actually stop him, give him demerits, slow down everybody who sees him.  Instead they make money to buy cameras to make money with.  It's a business, keep speeding.  They enjoy doing business with you.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 21, 2007)

I am not anti Cop, I train under a former one and train and train with a few. It's a tough job, made tougher for them by the brass and the politicians.

  I  dont like the hypocracy  of much of the system, just like the traffic cams (Here they are easy to challenge " It was not me, How do I know some kid did not take my car for a joyride?  Can you clearly I.D. the  driver?, This worked well for me last year.  Case dismissed.

 When I was much younger and hung out with a crowd into Metal and Punk, I used to jump all over those who expoussed "Anarchy" and "We dont need the Pigs."

 I always said " If there ever was anarchy, you would be first among the dead #1 and #2, there will be another system of Govt. soon after and guess what, every society has had it's versions  of cops, be it a force, an army or those in the village who assume the job."


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 21, 2007)

Fair enough.  In a village, the villagers look out for each other.  I guess that's primitive, original policing.  Sentries too.


----------



## Fang (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> I'm sorry, but you're still giving terrible advice, and here's why
> 
> "I panicked" or "I was in blind fear" trashes a claim of self defense
> No it doesn't, fear is exactly the motivator that you'd want a jury to latch onto.
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> MA-Caver, "Suppose" is not the same thing as "Did". He _*did*_ act correctly. And honestly, you're holding him to an infinitely higher standard than you would hold anyone who carries tin. A cop can kill you if he thinks you're making a "furtive movement" let alone holding a gun to someone's head. By that standard the manager was well within his rights to cut the robber's head clean off.


 
And an officer would have been required to justify his actions, and is held responsible for them.  Officers are both civilly and criminally liable for their use of force in the United States.  In fact, it's not uncommon for an officer to be sued even when both internal reviews and prosecutorial assessments find no wrongdoing.  

Unlike the image that you seem to want to portray, few cops are the gun-happy fools just looking for the opportunity to shoot someone.  In fact, more than one cop has been injured this year alone because they held off on using lethal force a second longer than they could have justified.  

Nor are most cops today the poorly trained buffoons that can't do anything but violate people's rights and try to be the grinding foot of "The Man" that you often impute them to be.  Many, if not most, officers today have at least an associate's degree, and most academies meet the majority of the requirements for an associate's degree.  Many have at least a bachelor's -- and master's (and even doctorates!) aren't unheard of.  A typical academy lasts between 4 and 6 months, including several hundred hours of instruction.  Field training is a further 8 to 12 weeks (or more) on average.  During that time, the officer is no only learning when he or she may use force, but being constantly assessed in regard to their fitness for the job, their judgement, and their ability to apply their training, including areas as diverse as administrative law and zoology, as well as sociology, psychology, and much more, to rapidly developing situations.

On more than one occasion, I've posted a reasonable cop's view of self defense issues here.  IF someone's being attacked -- they have every right, and I'll even agree the duty, to defend themselves.  Law enforcement can't be there before every crime happens; we do our best to prevent crime -- but the truth is that our job is the detection of crimes and apprehending those who committed them, not stopping every potential crime.  Law enforcement is, by it's very nature within the US, primarily a reactionary organization; we don't stop people for the crimes they might commit, or we'd have to charge every man with rape, and every woman with prostitution.  After all, they all have the potential to commit those offenses!

But the fact that law enforcement is reactionary doesn't mean that you have the right or duty to take the law into your own hands, either.


----------



## Drac (Jun 21, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> I am not anti Cop, I train under a former one and train and train with a few. It's a tough job, made tougher for them by the brass and the politicians.."


 
*FINALLY *an intellegent post...For the record I am not a big fan of traffic cams either..Got a speeding ticket last month by one of them..You can clearly see my F.O.P plate, but as I was in a city that has no love for the FOP ( Faternial Order of Police) I got zapped...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> I'm sorry, but you're still giving terrible advice, and here's why
> 
> 
> "I panicked" or "I was in blind fear" trashes a claim of self defense
> ...


Solid advice.

If you lie -- you're going to be assumed to be guilty.

If you can say what you did, and why you did it, and tell the truth, you have the best chance to be believed as well as to show that you were justified in what you did.

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're admitting you did something that would ordinarily be a violation of the law -- but you were justified in doing so.  You wouldn't have shot the guy if he wasn't shooting at you...  Playing games with the truth, altering the crime scene (we can typically tell), will equal guilty behavior; being less than cooperative may be taken as a sign of guilt.  Your best option, without providing legal advice!, is to be honest.  "I don't want to talk till I've talked to my lawyer" is honest; if you did nothing wrong, it's annoying, and could get you arrest -- but it's honest.  And might be the wisest choice thing to say.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 21, 2007)

One of the things that I like about this cluster of fora is that there actual, qualified, individuals who can give their professional viewpoint on quite a variety of things.

It's so much better to hear from a bona fide police officer what 'LEO's' think about a cirumstance than have to try and sift through a barrel-load of 'opinion' from those who, when it comes down to it, really don't _know_.

Thank you, chaps; your input is always valued :tup:.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 21, 2007)

Correct me if Im wrong, but I always hear the "cops cant shoot", "cops cant fight" mantra. Typically from the same "types". But in the long run arent those the last ditch skills anyway? Id bet you could have a kick *** dude that could shoot the eye off a fly and beat CroCop in the ring and still be a sucky cop. Cant talk to people, wouldnt notice AliBabba and the 40 thieves crawling out of the local bank at 3 AM, etc. On the other hand being an alert, methodical and educated investigator that could get a confession out of Al Capone wont matter if you are beat to death on a car stop. But in the end, what skills get the job done better?


----------



## Drac (Jun 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But in the end, what skills get the job done better?


 
You need a little bit of *ALL *of the skills you mentioned plus a bit of the 6th sense..


----------



## Drac (Jun 21, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> It's so much better to hear from a bona fide police officer what 'LEO's' think about a cirumstance than have to try and sift through a barrel-load of 'opinion' from those who, when it comes down to it, really don't _know_.


 
Thanks Sukerkin..Unless they( who think they know police work) have done the job, made felony traffic stops, responded to Domestic Violence calls, fight in progress calls, bldg searches etc...etc.. They don't know a thing..They can read books, watch Cops and CSI , Law and Order and The Avengers and they will still be outsiders looking in ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 21, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Unlike the image that you seem to want to portray, few cops are the gun-happy fools just looking for the opportunity to shoot someone. In fact, more than one cop has been injured this year alone because they held off on using lethal force a second longer than they could have justified.


 

Like this poor officer?

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1126547419

Warning, its not visually graphic but it will break your heart.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, but I always hear the "cops cant shoot", "cops cant fight" mantra. Typically from the same "types". But in the long run arent those the last ditch skills anyway? Id bet you could have a kick *** dude that could shoot the eye off a fly and beat CroCop in the ring and still be a sucky cop. Cant talk to people, wouldnt notice AliBabba and the 40 thieves crawling out of the local bank at 3 AM, etc. On the other hand being an alert, methodical and educated investigator that could get a confession out of Al Capone wont matter if you are beat to death on a car stop. But in the end, what skills get the job done better?


The perfect cop would be able to shoot the gonads off of a mosquito in flight at 300 yards with a snub nose revolver (without disturbing the wingbeat), beat Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris, all the Gracies, the Batman, and the Predator simultaneously at hand to hand, talk an Eskimo into buying not only a refrigerator, but an air conditioner AND an ice pack in a blizzard, charm a lion into not only laying down with, but changing diapers on a lamb, be compassionate without being crushed by the depravity he comes across in his duties...  He'd be an expert in all aspects of forensics, from metallurgy and ballistics to fingerprint and handwriting analysis, and he'd be enough of a lawyer to shame Daniel Webster.

In reality -- cops are made from people.  Most of us have to be jacks-of-all-trades, doing the best we can to apply a constantly changing rule book to situations that it was never designed for in the first place.  We all share one simple goal; to get home in one piece at the end of the shift.  We all make mistakes, and live in constant dread that one mistake will be our last.

On top of the work stuff -- most of us have lives, too!  Wives that delight in hiding everything from us while we're at work, dogs that need to be walked even when we're dead tired, lawns that need mowed, leaking toilets at 1 AM and all the rest.  Just like everyone else out there...

There's a great piece from the Dragnet radio series; here's one link to it:http://www.badge714.com/dragquot.htm#cop.

So... to finally answer your question, cops need enough fighting/combat skills to stay alive while doing the rest of their job.  You wouldn't want a plumber who could only install sinks; it's not enough for a cop only to be a fighter.


----------

