brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
considering I have a constitutional guarentee of being secure in the privacy of my own home, It is up to the SWAT teams to figure the solution, not us.
I disagree. Being a LEO myself, I think the fear of civil accountability is largely responsible for many "over-the-top" LE actions. In the case the original poser brought up, for example, how could the police not respond if they are called and told an active shooter was on the loose? If they don't and it's real the civil liability is enormous. As LEOs, we simply do not have the freedom to think "that doesn't sound plausible, we aren't going to respond". I have to say most of the "man with gun / knife" calls I've been dispatched to have been received with a disbelieving eye-roll on my part. But I can't afford not to go. I don't have pockets that deep.
You are thinking of the money saving phone service from back in the day.feedthehogs said:I thought these went out in the 50's?on a telephone party line chat line, a social networking service
Personally, the whole concept of SWAT scares the hell out of me, and anyone that doesn't think their very existence would have most of the founding fathers rolling over in their graves is delusional
The SWAT people are a bit at blame as well, though... You don't take a random caller's word for it and storm a house with guns blazing.
So it appears you believe that getting fired, having your career prospects dead-ended by disciplinary action and reprimands, suspensions without pay, etc., don't constitute being "held financially accountable for their willing [sic] mistakes" ... (Perhaps you meant "willful?")If individual LEO's were held financially accountable for their willing mistakes, just like MD's and other professionals are personally accountable we would see a lot less callous disregard displayed by their acts.
Count me firmly in the delusional faction. I don't live in Mayberry and unarmed Andy Taylor can't aw-shucks talk our criminals into throwing down their guns and coming out peacefully at the offer of some of Aunt Bea's peach cobbler ...Personally, the whole concept of SWAT scares the hell out of me, and anyone that doesn't think their very existence would have most of the founding fathers rolling over in their graves is delusional.
That statement displays a profound ignorance of the founding fathers statements and intentions,not to mention,that same argument is a favorite of the anti-gunnersWow ignorant and delusional all in one thread but yet no one can tell me, what do we do without SWAT teams in high risks situations?
(BTW the founding father probably were expecting semi-auto's the puckle gun anybody?)
It still seems to me that folks are focusing on the SWAT element in this situation. You should focus on the instigators and how to prevent the initial action that caused the whole business in the first place.
Sergeant Sabre said:Quote:
Not to sound overly snarky, but wouldn't an "active shooter" cause gunshots to be heard? This may be like Sherlock Holmes' case of the dog that didn't bark but if I was responding to such a call, I'd expect to hear gunshots.
NOT hearing gunshots would be suspicious. Maybe not enough to make me drive off (maybe the actor is reloading) but, still????
Not snarky at all.
I understand what you are saying. One can not assume, though. The last officer killed in my area didn't hear any shots at all. Probably not even the one that killed him as he was attempting to move to a position at the rear of a residence and was ambushed.
Would you stake your life on the fact that you haven't heard any shooting yet?