OlBill wrote: The final result was they shot and killed an unarmed man on his knees in a hotel hallway.
They never saw a gun because there wasn't one.
I would be in prison for that.
![I Agree :iagree:](./images/smilies/iagree.gif)
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
OlBill wrote: The final result was they shot and killed an unarmed man on his knees in a hotel hallway.
They never saw a gun because there wasn't one.
I would be in prison for that.
Exactly ! The guy was drunk. He did not shoot at anyone. The call was only that someone saw "a gun sticking out of a window". The man did not resist arrest in any shape, form or fashion. He tried his best to comply with the conflicting and confusing demands being yelled at him--while begging them not to shoot him. These SWAT tactical assaults are being grossly overused and with far too many tragic results. They are the result of the militarization of many police departments and other LE agencies which, under the mantra "our first priority is to make sure we make it home safely ", approach every call with the preconception that they may encounter a crazed killer. While that situation does happen, statistically the vast majority of officers will never be in a live situation requiring them to discharge their weapon--EVER. There is no real justification for this "us against them" attitude. I saw some abuses of authority back in the 70's by some of the officers I worked with, but nothing ever close to approaching some of the stuff we see today. I didn't like the ones that bullied people then, and I hate it now.eureka40 wrote:There were six cops on that scene, video from the motel lobby shows them getting on the elevator together. If six cops can't handle one drunk guy without shooting/killing him, that dept has a serious problem.
Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."
That's not what I took from it, but yes. Absolutely. More than anyone else.mayor wrote:Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."
What do you mean "we" kemo sabe?WTR wrote:However, I think we need to quite making excuses for these deviants and clean our own house. Otherwise, we provide fodder for the left.
TAM recommended the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" a few months back. I took that advice and in the book found the suggestion that the types of officers who were the most likely to want to join SWAT like teams were the ones who deserved the greatest scrutiny in the application process. The book suggests that the mindset can be just wrong.mayor wrote:Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."
Also a little known fact, many "Combat veterans" heard a lot more combat then they ever participated inA little known secret - many combat veterans are not nice people.
I would say the shooter was following the mindset of the guy giving the orders was repeatedly threatening to shoot to man if he didn't follow instructions exactly.chasfm11 wrote:TAM recommended the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" a few months back. I took that advice and in the book found the suggestion that the types of officers who were the most likely to want to join SWAT like teams were the ones who deserved the greatest scrutiny in the application process. The book suggests that the mindset can be just wrong.mayor wrote:Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."
Having said that, I think that we can miss the biggest problem. Departments are often driven by the mindset of chief. The rank and file officers are likely to reflect that mindset. A Facebook poster yesterday suggested that the best approach would be to elect politicians who would hire chiefs of police who didn't drive toward the "warrior cop" environment. The chief doesn't have to create warrior cop thinking but just tolerating it can be a problem.
What does that tell us when there isn't?parabelum wrote:This murderer should not have been acquitted. Brings great shame for LE community. I wish there was a loud protest from the LE circles against this fascist thug who doesn’t deserve to be called cop.
I read it too on the same recommendation. I learned a lot, even after having been involved in some of it.chasfm11 wrote:TAM recommended the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" a few months back. I took that advice and in the book found the suggestion that the types of officers who were the most likely to want to join SWAT like teams were the ones who deserved the greatest scrutiny in the application process. The book suggests that the mindset can be just wrong.mayor wrote:Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."
Having said that, I think that we can miss the biggest problem. Departments are often driven by the mindset of chief. The rank and file officers are likely to reflect that mindset. A Facebook poster yesterday suggested that the best approach would be to elect politicians who would hire chiefs of police who didn't drive toward the "warrior cop" environment. The chief doesn't have to create warrior cop thinking but just tolerating it can be a problem.
Definitely agree with the former. Not so much with the latter.E.Marquez wrote:Also a little known fact, many "Combat veterans" heard a lot more combat then they ever participated inA little known secret - many combat veterans are not nice people.
A well known fact,"are not nice people" applies to any demographic you wish to label..teachers, Cops, real estate agents or librarians