Primary safety concern- citizens or police?

[Mikelus Trento]

Based on events yesterday (and in the recent past at other places, eg Columbine), I thought it might be insightful for some discussion on the protocol and training that the police use in situations like Virginia Tech.

Who do you think deserves the priority on safety....the citizens or the police?

If it is the citizens, as it should be, since the police are hired by us and give an oath to protect us, what do you think the protocol should be in hostage situations where the bad guy(s) are continually murdering innocent people, rather than a negotiation situation where life has not been lost?

It seems to me the police use the same protocol for both situations....ie, secure a perimeter with an overwhelming number of police, wait for the SWAT to arrive, and then, usually hours later, and oftentimes when the shooter(s) are already dead by their own hand, they rush in. After 10, 20, 30 people are dead.

Heroic indeed.

[Skyler]

Heroics aside, they must know what is going on, as they cannot go rushing place to place. Confussion seemed to be the emphesis on what happend yesterday.

But I agree on a better protocol.

[Mikelus Trento]

It seems to me that the longer they wait, and the more police that arrive, the more confusion that is created.

How many is a safe number of police to handle each shooter? 3? 4? I would like to think that a fully trained and obviously armed policeman could take down a shooter 1 on 1, but to give them the safety edge, probably 3 or 4.

[RZZZA]

It seems to me that the longer they wait, and the more police that arrive, the more confusion that is created.

How many is a safe number of police to handle each shooter? 3? 4? I would like to think that a fully trained and obviously armed policeman could take down a shooter 1 on 1, but to give them the safety edge, probably 3 or 4.

Remember Waco? Police arent really capable of taking on an assault rifle weilding, kevlar donning criminal. All the police have is a little pistol and a shotgun in the trunk of their cars, neither of which is ideal when facing assault rifles.

The cops try to be sneaky, they'll do the standard "flanking" manouvers(sp?) that we all do in Total War games. The police arent really goo for much imo, its the SWAT guys that you have to watch out for. They have the "hide in the open" ability, have you ever seen a swat guy crawling along the curb or in the bushes real slowly and stealthily? Goddam do you have to hav patience to crawl like that.

Show me a donut munching cop trying to be stealthy, he'd hide behind a tree and his bulging gut will give him away.

[Mikelus Trento]

Remember Waco? Police arent really capable of taking on an assault rifle weilding, kevlar donning criminal. All the police have is a little pistol and a shotgun in the trunk of their cars, neither of which is ideal when facing assault rifles.

The cops try to be sneaky, they'll do the standard "flanking" manouvers(sp?) that we all do in Total War games. The police arent really goo for much imo, its the SWAT guys that you have to watch out for. They have the "hide in the open" ability, have you ever seen a swat guy crawling along the curb or in the bushes real slowly and stealthily? Goddam do you have to hav patience to crawl like that.

Show me a donut munching cop trying to be stealthy, he'd hide behind a tree and his bulging gut will give him away.

These were obviously handguns they were hearing, not assault rifles. And your point only serves to highlight my thought that they need to have different protocols for different situations.

[mrjesushat]

I will reiterate here what I said in a separate thread. We must have an armed populace. It becomes extremely difficult to murder thirty people when the thirty people in question are all heeled with fine pieces, themselves. Sure, it's fun to go wacko and run around with your pistols, firing at innocent civilians, but it becomes less fun when those innocent civilians start shooting back.

Madness? This isn't madness. This is Sparta. Or, at least, it should be. With certain adjustments for open-mindedness and a dedication to higher education for every American citizen. I hold that Thomas Jefferson and the boys had in mind a citizen-ideal: educated, urbane, logical, highly critical and suspiscious of authority, and heavily armed. Sure, they had some serious issues where race and gender and ethnicity were concerned, but these things have altered over time and brought us to a brave, new America where we could see real innovation in form and function of the State. What's wrong with that well-regulated militia?

All I'm saying is, next time a random shooter or a terrorist decides to commit an act of mass murder, let's see his/her face when they pull their gun, and fifty people point guns right back at them. Will there be casualties? You bet. Will thirty unarmed people get wasted? Hardly.

Remember, kids. To make an omelet, you have to kill a few people.

[RZZZA]

I will reiterate here what I said in a separate thread. We must have an armed populace. It becomes extremely difficult to murder thirty people when the thirty people in question are all heeled with fine pieces, themselves. Sure, it's fun to go wacko and run around with your pistols, firing at innocent civilians, but it becomes less fun when those innocent civilians start shooting back.

Madness? This isn't madness. This is Sparta. Or, at least, it should be. With certain adjustments for open-mindedness and a dedication to higher education for every American citizen. I hold that Thomas Jefferson and the boys had in mind a citizen-ideal: educated, urbane, logical, highly critical and suspiscious of authority, and heavily armed. Sure, they had some serious issues where race and gender and ethnicity were concerned, but these things have altered over time and brought us to a brave, new America where we could see real innovation in form and function of the State. What's wrong with that well-regulated militia?

All I'm saying is, next time a random shooter or a terrorist decides to commit an act of mass murder, let's see his/her face when they pull their gun, and fifty people point guns right back at them. Will there be casualties? You bet. Will thirty unarmed people get wasted? Hardly.

Remember, kids. To make an omelet, you have to kill a few people.

Bill Maher had an excellent response to this, he goes...

"Y'know, the NRA thinks the answer is to give everybody guns. Yeah, they think if the librarian or the lunchlady was packin'...it would be a different story. Right, because what you really want in our schools is lots of crossfire."

[Aristophanes]

Bill Maher had an excellent response to this, he goes...

"Y'know, the NRA thinks the answer is to give everybody guns. Yeah, they think if the librarian or the lunchlady was packin'...it would be a different story. Right, because what you really want in our schools is lots of crossfire."

Bill Maher's a douchebag. I rest my case.

[over-man]

Bill Maher had an excellent response to this, he goes...

"Y'know, the NRA thinks the answer is to give everybody guns. Yeah, they think if the librarian or the lunchlady was packin'...it would be a different story. Right, because what you really want in our schools is lots of crossfire."

Crossfire is better than point-blank execution-style fire. I think the 30 executed students would agree. Crossfire doesn't always kill someone, a shot to the head does.

[Mikelus Trento]

Of course, in this case, if he hadn't had purchased the weapons had they been illegal, it also wouldn't have happened.

You are off topic my friend, and the gun control thread is where your post belongs. This thread is dedicated to police training and protocol in situations like just occurred.

edit: I am eager to have some law enforcement people post their thoughts. Do THEY feel their oath to protect the citizenry puts their own safety secondary to those they are sworn to protect?

[Skyler]

mrjesushat,

I can understand and respect your reasoning but who is to say that those people will not freeze when such (terrorist for example) activity occurs.

And I do not think mr.Jefferson had the notion of the rapid and sophisticated expand of armed technologie.

[Mikelus Trento]

Please stay on topic folks.

[LoZz]

a citizen is not employed to protect anyone, it is not his duty.


however a police officer is their for that purpose, it is his/her job to protect people, and sometimes they means putting themselves in harms way, that is their job, they know that is their job and if they are unprepared to defend civilians then they should not be police officer

[Mikelus Trento]

Aye Lozz. That being said though, at what point should they put themselves at risk?

My concern is that their current protocols puts the officers' safety before the citizens. Yesterday's events and the pictures we see of it show that obviously none of those MANY police people cowering behind their cars or trees (did the person even shoot outside?) felt the safety of the people inside was more important than their own safety.

And this is exactly opposite to what we citizens feel the situation should be.

No, I am not saying the first officer on the scene should have gone running in like Rambo. What I am saying though is they surely didn't need to wait for literally HUNDREDS of police to "secure the perimeter" when they could hear at most 2 different weapon sounds. And an educated guess at that point would have said there were at most 2 shooters.

My disgust with law enforcement people grows with every incident I see like this, and with every incident of 10 police beating on one person (eg, Rodney King).

I guess I would just like them to be a little more brave when they need to be, and a little less of a bully when they have a helpless person down on the ground.

[LoZz]

Aye Lozz. That being said though, at what point should they put themselves at risk?

my belif is that an officer should be willing to give their life to protect a citizen from harm, if they cant do this, they should not be a police officer

[Mikelus Trento]

We are in harmony on our thoughts then Lozz. And you were surely then as dismayed as I was yesterday (as at Columbine) to see NONE of them doing that.

[Tom Paine]

my belif is that an officer should be willing to give their life to protect a citizen from harm, if they cant do this, they should not be a police officer

But what if self-sacrifice may cause more to be killed, if it fails?

[Mikelus Trento]

But what if self-sacrifice may cause more to be killed, if it fails?

That is where their training and a 3- or 4:1 advantage would kick in....they should not lose if they have the proper training. Honestly, if you had had a relative at that school yesterday and saw all the police around the building behind their cars and trees while the shots were ringing out and people were being murdered, wouldn't you want them to be a alittle braver?

I thought that was why they carry a gun.

[Skyler]

Do you prefere them to be brave and then get shot becoming rather useless then? They didn't know (I presume) what was going on or how many people were involved so they used caution instead.

[Mikelus Trento]

They heard 2 different weapons being discharged, which would indicate 2 shooters.

I expect them to be brave to the point of honoring the oath they have taken, which implies the citizens' safety overrides their own...within reason.