Female Cop Rescued By Homeless Man

They don't get criminal records as easy. The skanks I know that have become cops would blow your mind. Rap fan prostitute druggies. Literally. But hey, TWO of them worked at skank bars and had sex with cops.. So they're cool. *rolleyes*

Meanwhile, that suburban guy who grabbed his wife's wrist for cheating? He can never have a government job, because he is a domestic abuser.
 
Good to hear. Chick needs to do some judo. Can't rely on the homeless every time.
 
Last edited:
Was she on-duty? Why was she alone?
Male or female, a cop should not be working the streets solo - especially not in a country like the states, which has pretty violent criminals.
 
Was she on-duty? Why was she alone?
Male or female, a cop should not be working the streets solo - especially not in a country like the states, which has pretty violent criminals.

I agree with this. Cops should never be on duty alone.

The one video that always sticks with me is Kyle Dinkheller getting killed.
 
More than one male officer has been aided by good Samaritans in recent years. But yeah, the gender is typically at a physical disadvantage when it comes to confrontation.
 
Cops don't have as much experience with violence as criminals do.

Probably why some shoot first.
Well the problem is that cops are limited in their use of force whereas criminals are not.

If you cannot attack me until I attack you first, I'm going to win like 9 out of 10 fights. Unless you're just that much better than me.

Cops are always at a tactical disadvantage. It's just the nature of the job.
 
Well the problem is that cops are limited in their use of force whereas criminals are not.

If you cannot attack me until I attack you first, I'm going to win like 9 out of 10 fights. Unless you're just that much better than me.

Cops are always at a tactical disadvantage. It's just the nature of the job.

That's not true at all. A cop walks into a battle with his gun out if he so chooses.

They should still have backup. One cop in a car is stupid.
 
I agree with this. Cops should never be on duty alone.

The one video that always sticks with me is Kyle Dinkheller getting killed.
Kyle Dinkheller was killed because he was afraid to shoot an armed, PTSD'd out psychopath when he absolutely should have. He was scared to do so because he had just recently faced disciplinary action for excessive force.

The real lesson to take away from that video is that you need to do what you need to do to go home at the end of the day. Not that a solo cop can't handle being solo. He should have opened fire on that veteran before he ever got his rifle up.
 
Kyle Dinkheller was killed because he was afraid to shoot an armed, PTSD'd out psychopath when he absolutely should have. He was scared to do so because he had just recently faced disciplinary action for excessive force.

The real lesson to take away from that video is that you need to do what you need to do to go home at the end of the day. Not that a solo cop can't handle being solo. He should have opened fire on that veteran before he ever got his rifle up.

He was outgunned.
I didn't know that about the disciplinary action thing.

Still a really sad video to watch.
 
That's not true at all. A cop walks into a battle with his gun out if he so chooses.

They should still have backup. One cop in a car is stupid.
You're assuming a cop knows when he's going into battle (and what sort of force he's going to need)

You literally just said some cops shoot first because they're inexperienced with violence, and now you're saying a cop is not tactically disadvantaged because he can just pull his gun out. Which is it?

Once you have your gun out, you're taking less lethal options off the table. If I'm just an unarmed drug dealer, let's say, and you have to shoot me because you had your gun out when the fight started, you're going to be in some shit, are you not?
 
You're assuming a cop knows when he's going into battle (and what sort of force he's going to need)

You literally just said some cops shoot first because they're inexperienced with violence, and now you're saying a cop is not tactically disadvantaged because he can just pull his gun out. Which is it?

Once you have your gun out, you're taking less lethal options off the table. If I'm just an unarmed, non-violent criminal, you're going to be in some shit, are you not?

It's both. Cops can sometimes have less experience with gun fights, but also be tactically advantaged by pulling first.
If something seems off, there's no shit for him pulling his gun.
 
He was outgunned.
I didn't know that about the disciplinary action thing.

Still a really sad video to watch.
I agree. Very gut wrenching to watch.

I'm not trying to argue that it isn't safer to have 2 cops versus one cop solo. It's definitely safer. Unfortunately, it's not always feasible. There's just not enough cops to go around. Well, maybe in the city there is. But at the county and federal level, there's just too much area to cover. (at least that's my experience)
 
I agree. Very gut wrenching to watch.

I'm not trying to argue that it isn't safer to have 2 cops versus one cop solo. It's definitely safer. Unfortunately, it's not always feasible. There's just not enough cops to go around. Well, maybe in the city there is. But at the county and federal level, there's just too much area to cover.

Why not? A car is worth more than a person?
2 to a car should be mandatory.
 
Why not? A car is worth more than a person?
2 to a car should be mandatory.
Just depends how much you value timely response (or any response, really) to calls. The one time I called the cops (because some drunk/drugged out lady kept banging on my door thinking it was her house), they told me, "We don't have anyone available but we'll send one when we do." And they never came.

It would not take 2 cops to handle that. In fact, I could handle her myself if I had the authority/jurisdiction. But the question is, do you want to assign enough cops to cover the area of responsibility, or do you want to make sure the cops are safe at the expense of the people? Most cops themselves (I'm pretty sure) will tell you they're just fine on their own.
 
Just depends how much you value timely response (or any response, really) to calls. The one time I called the cops (because some drunk/drugged out lady kept banging on my door thinking it was her house), they told me, "We don't have anyone available but we'll send one when we do." And they never came.

It would not take 2 cops to handle that. In fact, I could handle her myself if I had the authority/jurisdiction. But the question is, do you want to assign enough cops to cover the area of responsibility, or do you want to make sure the cops are safe at the expense of the people? Most cops themselves (I'm pretty sure) will tell you they're just fine on their own.

I'm sure that's the case 99% of the time. And that's fucked up that they couldn't help you. I'd look into police in your area if they couldn't get someone out.

For those less than 1% times, they need a partner. And those less than 1% times are enough to justify it.
 
I'm sure that's the case 99% of the time. And that's fucked up that they couldn't help you. I'd look into police in your area if they couldn't get someone out.

For those less than 1% times, they need a partner. And those less than 1% times are enough to justify it.
Well, I can agree on that. But what stops you from simply coordinating with a 2nd unit in those 1% of times that you're talking about?

Obviously, sometimes you won't know until it's too late, but that's what the gun is for, right? The 1% of the 1%.

I can understand your argument for keeping officers (and suspects) safe by pairing up officers. But I still think it's more feasible in some departments than others.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,917
Messages
55,455,023
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47
Back
Top