View Single Post
Old 04-19-2018, 11:24 AM   #1186
AllWorldTE
Registered User
 
AllWorldTE's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: nearby
Posts: 8,763
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $309418


AllWorldTE should have their picture on moneyAllWorldTE should have their picture on moneyAllWorldTE should have their picture on moneyAllWorldTE should have their picture on moneyAllWorldTE should have their picture on money
AllWorldTE should have their picture on moneyAllWorldTE should have their picture on money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
I'm sorry. Any police officer that refuses to enter a building while children are being shot has no business being a police officer. Period. THAT'S THE JOB!
I would be the first to say that there are officers I wouldn't want first on the scene of an active shooter because they are going to wait to be ordered to act because they spent their entire career waiting to be told what to do. They are followers and will always be followers. When a leader shows up and tells them what to do they do it. They shouldn't be officers but they are and we're not getting rid of them. They should be flushed during their FTO period but few municipalities are willing to flush money down the toilet (or jettison connected people or people who meet certain criteria) so these people get pushed through and they're a drag on departments for thirty plus years. They are out there but they are a small ratio of officers. Most department's have a few of these people but most officers will react to their training especially when it comes to engaging dangerous individuals.

CALEA has set national standards in all areas of police work which were adopted by the Mass Commission on Accreditation. These standards are not mandatory. Each municipality decides what level of policing they want usually based on their choice of police chief and how much money they are willing to spend. Some want a highly trained department that meets national standards and is highly active in the community so they promote those with that philosophy to chief and provide the budget to get it done. Many municipalities are happy with the bare minimum and promote useless cronies to chief and provide a bare bones budget. Those municipalities get what they want, it's certainly not the street cop's fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
It's all fine and good to write citations for speeding, and busting up teenagers having a party, but ultimately that's not what we have the police force for. Ultimately, their job is to "protect"!
Our number one job to is too protect life no doubt. Please tell this to the politicians many of whom have who've forgotten this. Having said that, officers all over this country routinely risk their own lives protecting others. Many lose their lives doing so. Instances where officers don't do so are rare.

I wasn't at Parkland. I'll wait until the after action report is issued to form my own conclusions however there have been media reports that the first responding officers on scene were ordered to set up a perimeter rather than enter the school. It's easy to say you'd disobey and go in anyway many cops I know say the same thing but those officers have no idea what the basis of the order is. They have to be thinking it's based on sound intell. How do they know it's a FUBAR order? If there's blame to go around I'd point towards the agency head and the command staff for issuing improper orders not the people on the ground.

Most SRO's I know I believe would have tried to engage the shooter. That the Parkland officer didn't is disappointing on its face although the officer has said there were reasons. Having never been in the situation I hope that I would respond properly and believe I would but until I'm there do I really know? Does anyone. A lot of officers act heroically during their careers over and over again but would they in a situation where the shooting starts and they're not sure what is going on and they have mere seconds/minutes to respond? I don't know but I do know there's going to be varying levels of reaction to the situation. Most will pass the test, some won't.

On thing I do know is I wouldn't expect an SRO to run headlong into fire from a tactically disadvantaged position. I've heard many say that they should run headlong into their deaths. That's stupid thinking. Officers should be evaluating and attempting to end the situation not sacrifice themselves to no purpose. At the same time, SRO's should be provided with the training and tools to combat an active shooter situation from a position of strength.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
No rational or reasonable person could conclude that these deputies acted to "protect", except their own impotent, sorry asses.
This could be true but based on media reports it could also be sensationalism. The four officers were ordered to set up a perimeter according to the media. If this is true their command staff was incompetent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
In my opinion, these officers are derelict in their duties, and should be civilly liable for damages from the families of the dead kids.
You don't know what actually happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
In fact, I would dissolve the entire department and have it replaced.
You don't know what really happened. If what happened was the result of the command staff shitting the bed why not replace the command staff with personnel who actually know what they are doing rather than those who meet political needs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
Having said that, based on my training, there is about a 50/50 chance of police engaging an active shooter in any situation....so I think the way these deputies behaved represents what would be expected of 50% of the police force in the country. That's a problem.
The majority of active shooter situations end prior to arrival or upon arrival of the police (within five minutes start to finish) meaning over 50% of the time the police didn't have the opportunity to engage the shooter regardless of how well trained or how brave and determined they were. Newtown was over in five minutes when the shooter killed himself. No officer was close to being able to engage the shooter. Not sure how this is a problem that's reflected in the deputy's behavior that day.

According to the Department of Justice during 160 active shooter incidents that occurred between 2000-2013.

21.1% of active shooters committed suicide prior to the arrival of the police
13.1% of the time the shooter was restrained by unarmed principals, teachers, staff or students prior to the arrival of the police.
3.1% of incidents were ended by armed non-Law enforcement individuals who engaged the shooter.
1.3% of shootings were stopped by off-duty armed law enforcement personnel.
10.6% of active shooter incidents were ended when the shooter committed suicide when the police arrived but hadn't had time to locate and engage yet.

So yes your stat is correct, in 51.2% of active shooter situations the police did not engage the suspect. Your implication that it's due to cowardice is off base.

Police did engage and exchange fire with the suspect in 28.1% of active shooter situations. LE suffered casualties in 46.7% of those exchanges including nine LE officials who were killed four of whom were killed in ambushes. They ran in to save lives and and were immediately killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
Police need to be trained to engage hostile shooters to save lives, no different than the fire department needs to be trained to enter a burning building to save lives.
Agreed. Who is going to pay for it?

Also, the FD has protocols. They will not enter burning buildings or will evacuate after a certain point. They do not intentionally put themselves in situations where they will most likely be killed to make a low chance of success save effort. Police personnel should be evaluating situations the same way. It makes no sense for an outgunned police officer to make a frontal assault on a better armed shooter in a stronger position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
Firemen (what's the word for females?) have proper gear and training to do that.
There is a surcharge on every homeowner's insurance policy in Massachusetts dedicated to Fire Service Training. Every Fire Department receives funds from the state dedicated to regular training. Fire personnel wait for the phone to ring, they can engage in training regularly.

There is no such surcharge for police training. All police training monies come from the general fund. The Mass Chief's of Police Association has repeatedly pushed to add a surcharge to every auto policy issued in the state to create a similar fund. It's never been seriously considered. There is very little money available for police training in this state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
We need to give the police the proper training and the proper gear for them to be prepared to engage an active shooter at any time. That means every officer should have ballistic protection, and ever vehicle should have a shotgun and an AR or similar rifle, and every officer should be well qualified to use them, meaning a certain regimen of training and trigger time, with minimum standards of proficiency.
I'm with you. Who is going to pay for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
If they can't do that, they should not be on the street. I'm sure there are other jobs they can do...desk jobs or something....but not responding to emergencies.
National standards demand that every officer must demonstrate proficiency with any weapon s[he] is issued. The standard states that any officer who fails to meet the proficiency standards (set by the state) will be placed into an administrative role until such time as they can meet the standard. It's up to each municipality, county or the state to adhere to national standards or not. Some do, some don't. Ask your mayor, TA or whatever if your city/town does. While you're at it ask him/her why these standards are optional? I already know the answer.

Also ask him/her to pay for a comprehensive on-going training and equipment program for police response to an active shooter situation. Then be there when large cuts are made to other programs to pay for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
I think we do a piss poor job of training our police almost across the board. I think there needs to be a lot more training on dealing with mental illness in non-lethal ways, and a lot more training on CQB tactics and gear when lethal force is called for. I think our police forces almost universally suck in both departments, frankly....not their fault, it is our fault for lack of standards and expectations.
Again I'm mostly in agreement here. I believe that Law Enforcement agencies should adhere to hiring polices designed to bring in only the best individuals, properly train them, properly evaluate them during their probation period and jettison those who don't have the skills, and engage in constant evaluation and training including extensive CQB tactics and providing all with the proper equipment.

Sounds great but it's not going to happen any time soon. This costs money. So instead lets just keep on blaming the cops on the street.

Last edited by AllWorldTE; 04-19-2018 at 11:37 AM..
  AllWorldTE is offline Reply With Quote