To Protect and to Serve II

#451
#451
Tactics are only part of the equation. The totality is what matters. This travesty began long before the shooting.
 
#453
#453
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Am I wrong on my view?
Click to expand...

Depends. I can see a scenario where both approaches could be successful/unsuccessful. LG said it correctly (spit) hindsight is not something taken into account. We can only review what they did and try to figure out why they chose their tactical approach. There is a ton of training for active situations and basically officers are told to confront the shooter rapidly, even to their own detriment. Again, I dont know why they did what they did but Im in no position to judge. Basically, I can understand your views, a layman, but if we take emotion out of it and look at everything, I think you'll remain saddened, but enlightened.
 
#454
#454
tim said:
Depends. I can see a scenario where both approaches could be successful/unsuccessful. LG said it correctly (spit) hindsight is not something taken into account. We can only review what they did and try to figure out why they chose their tactical approach. There is a ton of training for active situations and basically officers are told to confront the shooter rapidly, even to their own detriment. Again, I dont know why they did what they did but Im in no position to judge. Basically, I can understand your views, a layman, but if we take emotion out of it and look at everything, I think you'll remain saddened, but enlightened.
Click to expand...

I have a question, do you think all the returning veterans becoming cops has anything to do with the aggressive approach being used these days?
When the **** hits the fan, you default to the level of training that you have mastered. So when police situations break down, are these officers defaulting to a combat approach mindset which utilizes extreme violence of action?

Of course I'm saddened, I'm tired of all the violence from both sides.
 
#455
#455
I was having lunch today and 3 FSPD detectives came in and sat right next to me.

I'm lucky I got out of there alive.
 
#458
#458
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I have a question, do you think all the returning veterans becoming cops has anything to do with the aggressive approach being used these days?
When the **** hits the fan, you default to the level of training that you have mastered. So when police situations break down, are these officers defaulting to a combat approach mindset which utilizes extreme violence of action?

Of course I'm saddened, I'm tired of all the violence from both sides.
Click to expand...

Your premise is skewed. There is not a more "aggressive approach" today. There have always been veterans in the police force. Veterans from far worse wars than the ME wars we've waged. Vietnam, Korea, WW1 and 2. All much more personally violent from a numbers stand point. I would say as military paraphernalia improves so does LE's. Hence "Militarization of the Police Force". A sham, equipment does not make a soldier. The garb worn by 60's era swat teams resembles the 60's military and their tactics.
 
#459
#459
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not gonna do it. I like you OB, I really do lol
Click to expand...

:)


I know it was kind of prick-ish of me. But what the hell.

We have good cops around here. Hell even the DOT folks are ok. We do however, have some ******* state troopers.

Speaking of that, I have one that comes by the house with his wife ( my daughter and his wife are friends) I'm going to screw with him next time he's here. I'm going to get the cutting board out and put some sweet n low on it, walk in the den and act like I lining up me a line. :)
 
#460
#460
tim said:
Your premise is skewed. There is not a more "aggressive approach" today. There have always been veterans in the police force. Veterans from far worse wars than the ME wars we've waged. Vietnam, Korea, WW1 and 2. All much more personally violent from a numbers stand point. I would say as military paraphernalia improves so does LE's. Hence "Militarization of the Police Force". A sham, equipment does not make a soldier. The garb worn by 60's era swat teams resembles the 60's military and their tactics.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's debatable. Troops in ww2 weren't on the front lines as long as they are now. That leads to extreme pressure and a paranoia that would be impossible to shake. I have several close friends who have done numerous tours over there and it's not pretty, from what they tell me.

I can't ride with you on the militarization of police. The police are rapidly becoming the standing army the anti-federalist warned us about.
 
#461
#461
lawgator1 said:
Not for this.

We expect the police to confront crime. We pay them to do so. We should be very slow to blame them when a kid with a toy gun that was intentionally manipulated to make it look more real is pointing it at people, they react understandably swiftly, and he starts to pull the gun out of his waistband.

That is what they knew. All this Monday morning quarterbacking, from the comfort of a chair and a keyboard, is just not reasonable or fair.

All the complaints I hear from people about this now are some kind of after the fact judgment, based on additional facts that the officers did not have at the time.
Click to expand...

I agree with this
 
#465
#465
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'd say that's debatable. Troops in ww2 weren't on the front lines as long as they are now. That leads to extreme pressure and a paranoia that would be impossible to shake. I have several close friends who have done numerous tours over there and it's not pretty, from what they tell me.

I can't ride with you on the militarization of police. The police are rapidly becoming the standing army the anti-federalist warned us about.
Click to expand...

Troops in WW2 fought the Nazi's and Japanese. Some of the most brutal hand to hand combat ever. The deployment times were basically a result of a volunteer army vs a draft. You think a soldier in WW2 had as good of a view or perception of making it home alive vs a soldier in Afghanistan? I'm not in any way margainalizing today's soldier they fought a different war against a lesser opponent and, I might add, rules of engagment that put them in harms way more than it should have.

Your view of this militarization of police is terribly off. LEO's are always reactive, always. This is why we struggle with terrorists. They figure out a way to beat our intelligence and we try to figure out why. The police garb is simply a reaction to society. Plus, it's sometimes free. I honestly don't care how you feel about an officer wearing tactical equipment and neither should anyone else. I can assure you that it's heavy and cumbersome. They don't want to wear it, they need to wear it.
 
#466
#466
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Not a who, but a what. That what was their tactics.

I understand cops don't like to call out other cops, it's cool.
Click to expand...

I think we've been over this. There is more than one way to be tactical. You understand the concept ritght? Please try to remove hindsight from your theories. It's a man with a gun in a park, pointing it at people. What do you do? What does GV do? What does LG do? I'd bet there are 3 different conclusions with varying results that are never going to be known.
 
#467
#467
tim said:
Troops in WW2 fought the Nazi's and Japanese. Some of the most brutal hand to hand combat ever. The deployment times were basically a result of a volunteer army vs a draft. You think a soldier in WW2 had as good of a view or perception of making it home alive vs a soldier in Afghanistan? I'm not in any way margainalizing today's soldier they fought a different war against a lesser opponent and, I might add, rules of engagment that put them in harms way more than it should have.

Your view of this militarization of police is terribly off. LEO's are always reactive, always. This is why we struggle with terrorists. They figure out a way to beat our intelligence and we try to figure out why. The police garb is simply a reaction to society. Plus, it's sometimes free. I honestly don't care how you feel about an officer wearing tactical equipment and neither should anyone else. I can assure you that it's heavy and cumbersome. They don't want to wear it, they need to wear it.
Click to expand...

I'll say this, at least the soldiers in ww1 and 2 knew who they were fighting. The current conflict actually has no front lines. It's not comparable.

If the equipment is a result of society, violent crime is way down. Why the need for basically a military force?
I take issue with your assumption that this equipment is free. It's not free, it costs the taxpayer millions. Only to have it used against the very same people who pay for the equipment.
All the while, the politicians in Washington are actively trying to render the taxpayer incapable of acquiring the same level of "protection"
 
#468
#468
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I understand cops don't like to call out other cops, it's cool.
Click to expand...

It's not that at all. As I've said before, all the facts need to be know in a legal force encounter to judge it. Not just a very limited frame of reference we have gotten here. There are probably things we just don't know that came out at the hearing.

So when I say all the facts need to be known, all aspects including the testimony of the officers involved need to be taken into account.
 
#469
#469
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If you agree with that, you have to ask yourself the question. What gave the officers less time?

Also, ask yourself the question, how would a civilian be treated in this exact situation?
Click to expand...

It's the cops job to encounter a guy with a gun in the park.... It's not a civilians job to do the same.... The two is not even close to comparable
 
#470
#470
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'll say this, at least the soldiers in ww1 and 2 knew who they were fighting. The current conflict actually has no front lines. It's not comparable.

If the equipment is a result of society, violent crime is way down. Why the need for basically a military force?
I take issue with your assumption that this equipment is free. It's not free, it costs the taxpayer millions. Only to have it used against the very same people who pay for the equipment.
All the while, the politicians in Washington are actively trying to render the taxpayer incapable of acquiring the same level of "protection"
Click to expand...

very true, and the rules of engagment were far less restrictive. But, theoretically, having more restrictive rules of engagment would'nt play into your thoughts on a "more aggressive" police force. And by free, you know what I meant. It's surplus. The taxpyer has already paid for it once and it is then given to local agencies. Hence, free to the end user.

I've expounded on this before, but violence is not down. How it's reported is down. The pressure to show success have driven large cities to comp stat which is basically a politicians way to reduce crime.
 
#471
#471
volbeast33 said:
It's the cops job to encounter a guy with a gun in the park.... It's not a civilians job to do the same.... The two is not even close to comparable
Click to expand...

But these situations happen, it matters not if the person has a badge or not. What would happen to a civilian who shot a kid that has a toy gun? He'd be facing manslaughter charges at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#472
#472
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
But these situations happen, it matters not if the person has a badge or not. What would happen to a civilian who shot a kid that has a toy gun? He'd be facing manslaughter charges at best.
Click to expand...

This case went through the GJ, a civilians case would also. It would also be investigated by the same LEO's. Your premise is again skewed to worst case scenario.
 
#473
#473
tim said:
This case went through the GJ, a civilians case would also. It would also be investigated by the same LEO's. Your premise is again skewed to worst case scenario.
Click to expand...

But, the citizen would be standing tall before the man without the benefit of qualified immunity.
 
#475
#475
tim said:
The grand juror knows nothing about qualified immunity. Nothing. The facts are presented and a true bill is voted on.
Click to expand...

M.D. HARMON: 'A prosecutor can have a grand jury indict a ham sandwich if he wants to' - Central Maine

The citizen is much more at risk than the cop. Not only is that terrible, it's down right immoral. Two sets of rules, one for the citizen, one for the cop.

Then we can get into the triad that is formed against the accused. The judge, the prosecutor, and the cop all work for the same employer..... Can you say, conflict of interest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top