Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The answer is still: Training and reconnaissance at the scene.
Does that take too long? Not if we believe you, TamaraSavannah.
If police officers are concerned enough about putting themselves at risk to be willing to shoot at a moment's notice--even if they kill an innocent man--then the real equation is the balance of their lives against the hostages. The time spent reconnoitering reduces the risk of the police being killed and indirectly reduces the risk of police killing innocents, easily balancing the risk of hostages being killed by taking that time.
About "taking that time" and the issue of time ....that gets into a rather large discussion that probably should be in another thread. I am not an expert on ALERRT (look it up, I don't want to link it) but from what I understand of their doctrine, it is the current line of thought that in a school shooting, the first LE responders proceed and do not wait for SWAT to arrive. In a situation like Beslan, the terrorists wanted to extend that out as long as possible until their deaths. The basic thing is that the use of time and drawing it out is more the tool of the enemy than it is of the good guys but as said, time should be in another thread.
How much reconnaissance is the civilian population willing to accept. If they knew just how devious someone like me might be, would they go for that? Ie, that I would assign people of the ethnicity of those usually found in janitorial employment, dress them as janitors, to a strike team so to achieve a state of invisibility when it comes to the police questioning witnesses since people don't usually see "such people"?
Or even worse that I would suggest putting Vice officers into the family gathering location for a University hostage situation so to detect any enemy confederates which might be in that group. It's an old trick I learned about skyjackers in that not all of them might reveal themselves at the same time.
Another thing to consider is the time we live in. Las Vegas, the gay bar in FL, the church in Texas, end of the year for a big bang. Is it possible, to a police officer, that this is another situation? Who could say "No, it isn't"?.
Given these times and given how much I know from my studies (but I don't know it all), such as an enemy doing a minor attack before a major attack (many have used it but I learned about it hearing about the Viet Cong), if I send out reconnaissance, it's going to be the size of a platoon at the very least. Enough manpower to adequately cover a situation I believe is real, enough firepower to fight the situation at least so they can fall back to containment and secure a perimeter if they find out it is real.
This is not a fact finding mission. For that, I can send out, in manpower terms, a fire team to observe silently and report back. This is a situation that I have many reasons to believe it is hot and you better believe that if I send out reconnaissance, it is going to be very invasive. Such as holding anyone, most likely handcuffed, until I have all the facts.
Again, it is the damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. People died and you should have but if no one died, how dare you suspect anyone to conduct operations like that!
Equally, however, it is a price of living in a free country where if one doesn't want the police to be absolutely sure such as being invasive, then one has to be ready to accept losses that can occur with those limitations.
About "taking that time" and the issue of time ....that gets into a rather large discussion that probably should be in another thread. I am not an expert on ALERRT (look it up, I don't want to link it) but from what I understand of their doctrine, it is the current line of thought that in a school shooting, the first LE responders proceed and do not wait for SWAT to arrive. In a situation like Beslan, the terrorists wanted to extend that out as long as possible until their deaths. The basic thing is that the use of time and drawing it out is more the tool of the enemy than it is of the good guys but as said, time should be in another thread.
I understand that. The doctrine changed with the Columbine Massacre that the intial responders would not merely sit on their azzes waiting for SWAT. That does not negate them reconnoitering the situation enough to have some kind of tactical picture of the situation before they take action.
I understand that. The doctrine changed with the Columbine Massacre that the intial responders would not merely sit on their azzes waiting for SWAT. That does not negate them reconnoitering the situation enough to have some kind of tactical picture of the situation before they take action.
Two things.
First of all, what is considered proper reconnaissance for such a situation? Lots of people are saying they, the police, should have conducted reconnaissance first. Okay, what are people picturing as reconnaissance for this situation?
Secondly, you did observe that once I was in the service. Keep in mind that from such experience, I as I assume others do as well, operate under the mindset of "Better to have assets on hand and not need them than to need them and not have them.".
First of all, what is considered proper reconnaissance for such a situation? Lots of people are saying they, the police, should have conducted reconnaissance first. Okay, what are people picturing as reconnaissance for this situation?
Secondly, you did observe that once I was in the service. Keep in mind that from such experience, I as I assume others do as well, operate under the mindset of "Better to have assets on hand and not need them than to need them and not have them.".
I suspect that as a service police officer, you did not view the rest of the military on base as your enemy with whom you were at war.
The chief of police of Plano, TX, does view the residents of Plano as his enemy, which whom he is at war.
I suspect that as a service police officer, you did not view the rest of the military on base as your enemy with whom you were at war.
The chief of police of Plano, TX, does view the residents of Plano as his enemy, which whom he is at war.
That is difficult to say for one does have a different point of view. When you tell other people that they are in the wrong, they do not take it well at all. I had LOTS of arguments about enforcing the various regulations.
Basically, people, not criminals, people do not want to hear "No" to what they want to do. Take the matter of having the proper paperwork of registration, driver's license, and proof of insurance to get a pass to get on the base (this was well before 9-11). We had a sign at the end of the parking lot, another one on the door of the police house, another one above the head of the dispatcher, and still, endlessly, people would arrive without one of the pieces, usually the registration.
We heard, endlessly, "Can't I tell you what the numbers are?" (No). "Can't you go down and see what the numbers are?" (No). "Can't the patrol man go see what the numbers are and radio them in?" (No).
They would then leave angry to return to their car to get that paperwork but you know, we tell them, endlessly, that this is what they need and they do not listen. This is some 28 years after the fact for me and still remembering that has me shaking in frustration.
People upset about that, people upset about when we seized improperly mounted DOD stickers, people arguing with me that I had the gall to ticket their car for the dog left inside, O-4 officers arguing that without a search warrant I would not do a contraband inspection on his car, people arguing over tickets by saying they thought my police patrol were teenagers in a stolen police car, senior officers as in Generals angry that I would search their car, and so forth. The list was endless.
People do not like to hear the word "No".
At war, no, but......... My naval police force was unconventional to certain degrees. They were in something of a federal, like department of the Navy, police uniform and not USN uniforms. The reason for that was that since we were in the Washington Naval District, we wanted to derail attempts of high ranking officers trying to lord over USN sailors.
Given that kind of environment, when people will not take responsibility for their actions, you do start to see people differently.
So forgive me if like so many of those in blue, I have a hard time of seeing civilians on the same level.
So forgive me if like so many of those in blue, I have a hard time of seeing civilians on the same level.
So you admit that you think you are better than people who aren't cops? You are arrogant like most in blue.
I could say as a veteran, I think I am better than those who did not serve, but I don't think that way.
So you admit that you think you are better than people who aren't cops? You are arrogant like most in blue.
I could say as a veteran, I think I am better than those who did not serve, but I don't think that way.
What is "better"?
Is "better" that I obey the law, that I don't think that I know better than the law, that I don't think I can do what I want?
If that is what better is, Yes, I think I'm better.
In the current era, I often see this situation about concealed hand guns and taking them into places that clearly have the 30.06 sign posted. There are those that do tell me, "concealed means concealed", "they have no business knowing whether or not I am carrying", or some other reason. We usually aren't discussing the point further but I wonder if they still see themselves as a "law abiding citizen"?
To me, if the business has the 30.06 sign up, I obey and do not carry in there.
So yes, and in correction to your statement, I consider myself better that I do obey the law. Not because I have been a cop, that I have my current involvement in police operations, but because I obey the law.
Is "better" that I obey the law, that I don't think that I know better than the law, that I don't think I can do what I want?
If that is what better is, Yes, I think I'm better.
In the current era, I often see this situation about concealed hand guns and taking them into places that clearly have the 30.06 sign posted. There are those that do tell me, "concealed means concealed", "they have no business knowing whether or not I am carrying", or some other reason. We usually aren't discussing the point further but I wonder if they still see themselves as a "law abiding citizen"?
To me, if the business has the 30.06 sign up, I obey and do not carry in there.
So yes, and in correction to your statement, I consider myself better that I do obey the law. Not because I have been a cop, that I have my current involvement in police operations, but because I obey the law.
People like you are the reason so many people dislike the police. The arrogance is overwhelming.
People like you are the reason so many people dislike the police. The arrogance is overwhelming.
Well, if lack of obeying the law is irritating to so many people, then perhaps there ought to be harsh sentences for people who do not obey the law especially when the misuse of resources or the loss or both is so great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
