Sorry Newbie.....don't know how this got attached to your post. Wasn't a reply to you.Originally Posted by TheNewbie
Sorry Newbie.....don't know how this got attached to your post. Wasn't a reply to you.
You're welcome anytime you're in the neighborhood.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I'll admit to bias, but this is what a use of force policy should look like:
Last edited by jlw; 04-05-2018 at 05:19 PM.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
Just to be clear I never suggested that we police like those guys in the UK or Norway. What I did suggest was that there may be some tactics we can learn from them that help LEOs do their jobs but with less likelihood of lethal encounters when the situation allows it. Or are you suggesting that there is nothing to be learned from them? I would expect our law enforcement leadership to always be looking for better ways to do things or is that not the case?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
I think we will see changes in tactics that may reduce the number of possibly armed and likely violent suspects being shot. For instance, in the Sacramento cases, officers could have called for containment and hoped for the best. Once containment was established, officers could await arrival of a SWAT team armed with the usual array of lethal and less-lethal weapons. If the officers kept far enough away, they would more likely have cover and shooting a person armed with a gun or cell phone would be less likely. If the subject approaches, the officer may be able to back further away. Of course, this is going to take some time, people will want to go or leave home/ Refusing them permission will result in complaint, arrests. and possible use of force. If people really want t enter or leave the area, I guess we should let them. If things work out, hopefully the suspect will escape and no problems.
Of course, this plan may put people like the octogenarian whose home the suspect burglarized at some risk, but we all need to contribute to the effort to avoid using force upon suspect.
Consider, for instance, the case in an park in Albuquerque several years. An urban outdoorsman had taken up residence and threatened various people. APD officers, including a gang unit with tactical capabilities, spent hours attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution. When the arrest plan went sideways and the suspect shot to death, two officers were prosecuted for homicide.
Was allowing public access to the park that important? Perhaps APD could have simply backed off and closed the park. After all, there are plenty of other parks that people could visit instead of this park. If the guy really doesn't decide to surrender, why risk use of force? Of course, some people may want to use this park and we don't want to risk upset (nor arrests or use of force). I guess we could just warn them to reduce liability. We just post signs than an armed, mentally ill offender is loose in the park. If asked why we're not doing something about it, we respond that we don't want to risk injuring or killed the armed suspect. There's another park across town, why don't you Google it? It's only a half hour away.
As has been remarked, communities get the policing they deserve.
Speaking of training - I was thinking of setting up a scholarship/fund for my local agency - nothing big, just like $500/year - for an LEO to go to Rangemaster or Langdon Tactical or Shivworks. Any idea how to get that set up? It's not a lot, but it'll at least defray some of the cost of registration. I figure, these guys can bring back their knowledge and tactics gained.
Define "better". I'm pretty sure there's a gaping chasm between what administrators think is better vs. the officer on the street with his butt on the line.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Having seen the tactics used by some police agencies in some of the countries mentioned, no I don't think we should be learning from them. They police in a totally different legal and threat environment, and frankly the tactics I've seen leave much to be desired. The tactics that CAN work are known to the training Community here in the US.....but training costs money, and is therefore bad. Much easier to create a new policy!
I've been calling out in the wilderness for over twenty years at my job, that lack of training would lead to bad outcomes that would lead to bad politically motivated policy. No one listened. They're still not listening. A little secret that citizens don't seem to know is that LE leadership types don't really know all that much about anything job related. Probably less than most of the non LE folks here. And they care even less. If it isn't going to get them up the next rung on the ladder, or help them hold on....it isn't worth their time or thought. As for what can be done? Sadly, no, I don't think we'll see change in the right direction. Just more policies that are unworkable and encourage de-policing, and a commensurate loss of public safety.
Last edited by AMC; 04-05-2018 at 06:58 PM.
No worries, I always enjoy your posts. You Rex, Blues, BBI, DB, Haggard etc are all blessings to the forum. I apologize to any I left out.
Wait a minute...
So this guy committed a burglary of an occupied home on the night of his unfortunate demise?
The press is only reporting breaking windows- like vandalism.
Can you give us more information on this, and perhaps a source?
ETA- I agree and sympathize with the thrust of your post. Just would like to learn more about an aspect I hadn’t heard before.
Last edited by GyroF-16; 04-05-2018 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
