To Protect and to Serve...

[hog88]

Yep. Facing out to see the threat. Standing up to move to cover if needed.

It ain't 7-8 stuff we're dealing with.

I understand forming a defensive perimeter when the possibility of another threat could be in the area.

BUT, if they thought that there was the potential for another threat to be in the area standing tall like a doofus with readily available cover is really dumb.

 

[Grand Vol]

I understand forming a defensive perimeter when the possibility of another threat could be in the area.

BUT, if they thought that there was the potential for another threat to be in the area standing tall like a doofus with readily available cover is really dumb.

Just SOP to form outward security. I suppose it normally ends up with how likely of a threat there is. And in this case, not likely.

 

[hog88]

Just SOP to form outward security. I suppose it normally ends up with how likely of a threat there is. And in this case, not likely.

My point is if they thought that the likelihood of another threat being present was so low as to not warrant taking cover, why have their weapons at the ready with fingers on the trigger?

 

[davethevol]

My point is if they thought that the likelihood of another threat being present was so low as to not warrant taking cover, why have their weapons at the ready with fingers on the trigger?

It's just another police intimidation tactic.

 

[Grand Vol]

My point is if they thought that the likelihood of another threat being present was so low as to not warrant taking cover, why have their weapons at the ready with fingers on the trigger?

SOP to always form outer security. Bad weapons safety to have fingers on triggers.

I think you are confusing the likely threat (not very) with something they do no matter what. Threat or no threat, they (probably) always form outer security.

Finger on the trigger...different matter entirely.

 

[YorkVol]

Just SOP to form outward security. I suppose it normally ends up with how likely of a threat there is. And in this case, not likely.

Bad SOP, imo. They appear to be acting as if they are in downtown Fallujah instead of a college campus. One accidental loud noise and you could easily have one of these officers inadvertently squeeze the trigger causing unintended harm. Also, having everyone up close like this puts them in an immediate close quarters combat situation if the guy was actually a bad actor. A little distance gives a better perspective and time to make better decisions.

Finally it sets up an immediate confrontation if the guy is unarmed but simply reacts poorly to being stopped. What if he says "Its an umbrella, you dumbhead, eff off!" The guy with the rifle aimed at the back of his head may only hear the last part and react to that with potentially catastrophic results.

This is the result of equipping everyone with heavy artillery and SWAT capabilities. When you have it, you want to use it and will do so at the least provocation. If all they had was their side arms they might have investigated from a distance, identified the umbrella and called all clear. Had the initial scouting determined they did have an active shooter, they could have isolated him and still had time to get a SWAT response from say the county or higher level municipality.

 

[hog88]

SOP to always form outer security. Bad weapons safety to have fingers on triggers.

I think you are confusing the likely threat (not very) with something they do no matter what. Threat or no threat, they (probably) always form outer security.

Finger on the trigger...different matter entirely.

Outward security in low threat environment does not require weapons at the ready.

Would love to know where the selector lever was?

 

[Grand Vol]

Bad SOP, imo. They appear to be acting as if they are in downtown Fallujah instead of a college campus. One accidental loud noise and you could easily have one of these officers inadvertently squeeze the trigger causing unintended harm. Also, having everyone up close like this puts them in an immediate close quarters combat situation if the guy was actually a bad actor. A little distance gives a better perspective and time to make better decisions.

Finally it sets up an immediate confrontation if the guy is unarmed but simply reacts poorly to being stopped. What if he says "Its an umbrella, you dumbhead, eff off!" The guy with the rifle aimed at the back of his head may only hear the last part and react to that with potentially catastrophic results.

This is the result of equipping everyone with heavy artillery and SWAT capabilities. When you have it, you want to use it and will do so at the least provocation. If all they had was their side arms they might have investigated from a distance, identified the umbrella and called all clear. Had the initial scouting determined they did have an active shooter, they could have isolated him and still had time to get a SWAT response from say the county or higher level municipality.

Outward security in low threat environment does not require weapons at the ready.

Would love to know where the selector lever was?

Pretty much the way most tactical teams are doing it these days. Better to be ready for a threat than react with your back to it.

As for the selector lever, I'll assume (hopefully) it's on safe where it should be.

There's a lot of nitpicking going on here. Tactics like these have been used for years if not decades.

 

[hog88]

Pretty much the way most tactical teams are doing it these days. Better to be ready for a threat than react with your back to it.

As for the selector lever, I'll assume (hopefully) it's on safe where it should be.

There's a lot of nitpicking going on here. Tactics like these have been used for years if not decades.

Without question. But not the point.

Having their weapons at the ready, finger on the trigger in a low threat urban environment is either an intimidation tactic or pizz poor training. If they thought there was a likelihood of another threat in the area and DIDN'T take cover that also lends itself to pizz poor training.

And yes there is a lot of nitpicking going on, but when playing with firearms there needs to be.

 

[hog88]

I'll just leave this here.

Poll: Whites and blacks question police accountability

 

[tim]

I'll just leave this here.

Poll: Whites and blacks question police accountability

Ironically this poll is taken when the Brown case is fresh in their minds. LEO's do not make it to the news when a incident is handled without incident, so most people have no idea how their training and show of force was effective. So, imo, this poll is skewed. People react to what they see, know, and what they're told. The news controls people's views more than most are willing to accept. How else can anyone explain how Obama got elected.... Twice?

 

[govols/cc]

Ironically this poll is taken when the Brown case is fresh in their minds. LEO's do not make it to the news when a incident is handled without incident, so most people have no idea how their training and show of force was effective. So, imo, this poll is skewed. People react to what they see, know, and what they're told. The news controls people's views more than most are willing to accept. How else can anyone explain how Obama got elected.... Twice?

Or you could say the majority of criminals are never gonna give an unbiased opinion.

 

[YorkVol]

Ironically this poll is taken when the Brown case is fresh in their minds. LEO's do not make it to the news when a incident is handled without incident, so most people have no idea how their training and show of force was effective. So, imo, this poll is skewed. People react to what they see, know, and what they're told. The news controls people's views more than most are willing to accept. How else can anyone explain how Obama got elected.... Twice?

From the article:

Loretta Moore, 36, a former teacher from Lodi, Calif., says her views of police soured after a student in her class was killed by an off-duty sheriff's deputy who was driving while drunk. "They get the lesser charges; he got (to use) the side door to the courtroom, the whole nine yards," Moore, who was called in the poll, said in a follow-up interview. She was dismayed when the officer was sentenced to only six months' probation.

Unfortunately, most people know at least one story that is similar to this and very few can tell a story of an officer who screwed up and was truly punished. Even though the vast majority of police are good men and women, the fact that there isn't clear accountability on the few bad apples is why there is diminished trust. If the average citizen knew there would be a fair, impartial inquiry and that officers would be held to a high standard of accountability then you would not see such a outcry after events like Ferguson. If the accountability does exist, then the police departments across the country have a perception problem on their hands and need to do some work to change it.

 

[tim]

From the article:



Unfortunately, most people know at least one story that is similar to this and very few can tell a story of an officer who screwed up and was truly punished. Even though the vast majority of police are good men and women, the fact that there isn't clear accountability on the few bad apples is why there is diminished trust. If the average citizen knew there would be a fair, impartial inquiry and that officers would be held to a high standard of accountability then you would not see such a outcry after events like Ferguson. If the accountability does exist, then the police departments across the country have a perception problem on their hands and need to do some work to change it.

I said "see, know, what they are told". But, its not a true representation of what goes on.

 

[YorkVol]

I said "see, know, what they are told". But, its not a true representation of what goes on.

I should have said it, but I actually agreed with you that most of the respondents were simply reacting to current events. But the more rational folks out there are losing trust and the police need to face up to it and do some things to regain that trust. As long as they continue to be defensive and operate in private then the distrust will continue to grow. The police need to be very transparent when they hold officers accountable.

I'm am not suggesting the officer in the Ferguson shooting is guilty and should be punished. None of us really know all the details, but for the most part it appears to be justified. However, as someone who has been around police my whole life and continue to work with them today, I think they've got some perception issues to deal with.

And if there is some reality to that perception, then they need to figure out a way to change.

 

[tim]

I should have said it, but I actually agreed with you that most of the respondents were simply reacting to current events. But the more rational folks out there are losing trust and the police need to face up to it and do some things to regain that trust. As long as they continue to be defensive and operate in private then the distrust will continue to grow. The police need to be very transparent when they hold officers accountable.

I'm am not suggesting the officer in the Ferguson shooting is guilty and should be punished. None of us really know all the details, but for the most part it appears to be justified. However, as someone who has been around police my whole life and continue to work with them today, I think they've got some perception issues to deal with.

And if there is some reality to that perception, then they need to figure out a way to change.

People (generally) do not like authority figures. There is very little that can be accomplished to get the target group to like LE. There are a ton of Citizen Police opportunities yet you'll see the same faces attending multiple times. Some people are content and hell bent to dislike cops. Hell, when I was a teen I didnt like them either. Hell I dont like a lot of them now, but I respect the job.

 

[hog88]

People (generally) do not like authority figures. There is very little that can be accomplished to get the target group to like LE. There are a ton of Citizen Police opportunities yet you'll see the same faces attending multiple times. Some people are content and hell bent to dislike cops. Hell, when I was a teen I didnt like them either. Hell I dont like a lot of them now, but I respect the job.

I respect the job. What I don't respect is the attitude that apparently develops along with the job. The last time I was pulled over (well deserved I'll add) this barely 20 yo thinks he needs to waste my time with a lecture on driving.

Yes I know I was speeding, I don't care what you have to say, write me the ticket and shut the F up!

 

[Grand Vol]

Without question. But not the point.

Having their weapons at the ready, finger on the trigger in a low threat urban environment is either an intimidation tactic or pizz poor training. If they thought there was a likelihood of another threat in the area and DIDN'T take cover that also lends itself to pizz poor training.

And yes there is a lot of nitpicking going on, but when playing with firearms there needs to be.

I've finally got the chance to respond to this. And I'm just quite baffled at your reply here. You seriously look for everything you can wrong in any given LE situation even though you are completely ignorant of tactical team movements. These are the same things they've been doing for years.

Years Hog, years. Decades likely. I learned this myself back in the late 90s so you could flat guarantee it's been going on before then even. Other than the finger on the trigger (which is a weapons safety violation yes) there is no "OMG they are scary" intimidation tactics in this team's movements. This is SOP for just about any tactical team. And for you to make that statement is just petty and childish. Because the whole psychology of a tactical team showing up IS to show people they are prepared for anything. You would rather them stroll on up with a gallon of milk and bag of Oreos?

Now you want to talk about "low threat environment?" Seriously? Like active shooters take into account the threat level. And if you really want to continue pushing the matter, how many active shooters have been in no gun zones that were "low threat" before the first shot was fired? So to say a college campus is an area that is an active shooter's dream that much be responded to swiftly and decisively is an understatement. And I'd be willing to bet pennies to dollars you've never heard the frantic calls like the local PD probably received about this. But I sure have and let me tell you something, you'd think the caller was staring down the barrel themselves.

History shows that a lot of innocent people can get hurt real fast in that kind of situation if the first responders don't take it serious and react quickly, so stop acting outraged over things you are willfully ignorant about. Either learn the right things to whine about or don't post.

 

[hog88]

I've finally got the chance to respond to this. And I'm just quite baffled at your reply here. You seriously look for everything you can wrong in any given LE situation even though you are completely ignorant of tactical team movements. These are the same things they've been doing for years.

Years Hog, years. Decades likely. I learned this myself back in the late 90s so you could flat guarantee it's been going on before then even. Other than the finger on the trigger (which is a weapons safety violation yes) there is no "OMG they are scary" intimidation tactics in this team's movements. This is SOP for just about any tactical team. And for you to make that statement is just petty and childish. Because the whole psychology of a tactical team showing up IS to show people they are prepared for anything. You would rather them stroll on up with a gallon of milk and bag of Oreos?

Now you want to talk about "low threat environment?" Seriously? Like active shooters take into account the threat level. And if you really want to continue pushing the matter, how many active shooters have been in no gun zones that were "low threat" before the first shot was fired? So to say a college campus is an area that is an active shooter's dream that much be responded to swiftly and decisively is an understatement. And I'd be willing to bet pennies to dollars you've never heard the frantic calls like the local PD probably received about this. But I sure have and let me tell you something, you'd think the caller was staring down the barrel themselves.

History shows that a lot of innocent people can get hurt real fast in that kind of situation if the first responders don't take it serious and react quickly, so stop acting outraged over things you are willfully ignorant about. Either learn the right things to whine about or don't post.

You are so defensive you have completely missed my point.

I fully understand tactical assault tactics, what is the difference in taking down a suspected active shooter than an ambush? I understand pulling security after the takedown, violence of action, left/right/rear security in case of a counter, all facing outward weapons at the rwady while the assault team does their work. The one thing that is different, the security has taken cover, there is no Fing way to move faster than a bullet and standing out in the open when the possibility of receiving fire will lead to getting hit. Get hit, you can't really pull security for your team now can you?

All if this to say that the ones (those facing away from the suspect) pulling security either didn't expect incoming rounds so no need to have their weapons aimed at god knows what. Or they are so piss poorly trained as not to know to take cover when there is the possibility of an assault.

 

[Grand Vol]

You are so defensive you have completely missed my point.

I fully understand tactical assault tactics, what is the difference in taking down a suspected active shooter than an ambush? I understand pulling security after the takedown, violence of action, left/right/rear security in case of a counter, all facing outward weapons at the rwady while the assault team does their work. The one thing that is different, the security has taken cover, there is no Fing way to move faster than a bullet and standing out in the open when the possibility of receiving fire will lead to getting hit. Get hit, you can't really pull security for your team now can you?

All if this to say that the ones (those facing away from the suspect) pulling security either didn't expect incoming rounds so no need to have their weapons aimed at god knows what. Or they are so piss poorly trained as not to know to take cover when there is the possibility of an assault.

No, I didn't miss your point at all. And there are huge differences in active shooter takedowns and an ambush situation. You keep falling back on your infantry training and it's like comparing apples to giraffes. Does...not...apply.

You talk about how piss poor their training is, but you can't tell me exactly what that training consists of. As a matter of fact, it's a sign of a well disciplined team to have those members continue to face outward which keeping their weapons at the ready. Threat or no threat, they are doing the same thing each and every time no matter what. And I'd guarantee you if they took rounds that stone wall would quickly become a friend. But the point you miss, willfully so, is the fact they train a certain way and perform that training in a real world application regardless of circumstances. If you were infantry, you'd know that any squad or platoon leader would love to have a whole group of guys that did exactly what they were trained to do the first time they had to apply it for real.

 

[YorkVol]

People (generally) do not like authority figures. There is very little that can be accomplished to get the target group to like LE. There are a ton of Citizen Police opportunities yet you'll see the same faces attending multiple times. Some people are content and hell bent to dislike cops. Hell, when I was a teen I didnt like them either. Hell I dont like a lot of them now, but I respect the job.

I agree with most of this but do not agree that there isn't much the police can do to build rapport with the citizens they serve (what you call the target group).

 

[YorkVol]

No, I didn't miss your point at all. And there are huge differences in active shooter takedowns and an ambush situation. You keep falling back on your infantry training and it's like comparing apples to giraffes. Does...not...apply.

You talk about how piss poor their training is, but you can't tell me exactly what that training consists of. As a matter of fact, it's a sign of a well disciplined team to have those members continue to face outward which keeping their weapons at the ready. Threat or no threat, they are doing the same thing each and every time no matter what. And I'd guarantee you if they took rounds that stone wall would quickly become a friend. But the point you miss, willfully so, is the fact they train a certain way and perform that training in a real world application regardless of circumstances. If you were infantry, you'd know that any squad or platoon leader would love to have a whole group of guys that did exactly what they were trained to do the first time they had to apply it for real.

So the military trains to keep your weapons down when patrolling urban environments in order to not provoke a confrontation, but the police train to keep their weapons at the ready? You don't see a problem with that?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Exactly where does muzzle discipline come into play here?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Poor muzzle discipline highlights poor training.

Ignore the 4 firearm safety rules all you want, but they were designed to be used for fighting.

 

[Grand Vol]

So the military trains to keep your weapons down when patrolling urban environments in order to not provoke a confrontation, but the police train to keep their weapons at the ready? You don't see a problem with that?

You and Hog are saying the same thing. But I'll ask this, if the military is moving through an urban area with the potential to run into an armed individual, do they continue to keep their weapons at the low ready? I know you know the answer and you know I do as well.

Point is, this umbrella guy got called in as having a long gun. Probably by a person who could identify a long gun two out of hundred times if he was lucky, but the call came in nonetheless. And in a situation like this you don't know if there's one or more. And you always go in on the assumption that there is "more" than the one. So to be ready while others on your team lowers their own weapons to search said individual is the method of training and response. And this team, other than the finger on the trigger faux pas, looked like many others that have done the same thing for years. Do I support it? Yes as a matter of fact I do. Because if there is more than one out there and they managed to start picking off a team, would you rather them not to be in a position to immediately react? How long does it take you to get from a low ready to a position of engagement?

It's the way they are trained. Have been trained and probably will continue to be trained. There are no sinister "intimidation tactics" at work here. It's performing said training in a real scenario. Go look at any pictures of a tactical team and the way they form up on security halts or taking a perp into custody. I'd almost be willing to bet they are almost identical to what you see in that picture.