NationStates

Chernoslavia wrote:
https://www.dolanconsultinggroup.com/wp ... -Force.pdf And I'll ask again, if regular police shouldn't be trusted with firearms then what makes you think they should even be law enforcement officers?

No, I've heard the likes of you making this bullshit argument countless times, the fact remains that it's a bad idea for the reasons me and others have already stated. Ordinary cops can still be armed and not point guns at people to enforce laws, what people who advocate for this crap forget is that cops also respond to criminal activities especially ones that are dangerous. And please elaborate on what this ''specialized training'' should be.

Satuga wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Weird reasoning is saying "I've never heard anyone make this argument before, so your ideas are bad and should be ignored". You might not agree with me, but I think that my reasoning is perfectly straightforward. The North Hollywood shoot out showed that ordinary officers are not able to deal with extreme threats. As such, SWAT teams were formed. All I am proposing is further specialisation. Leave the gunfights to officers specially trained for exactly that, and have ordinary cops do ordinary policing, not at the point of a gun, but by the consent of the people.

Do you not realize it takes SWAT members time to prepare?

Cops are first responders because of this, if there was no one able to arrive at the scene immediately it would give shooter free reign of the entire area for as long as it takes SWAT to arrive. The cops are there to at minimum, limit the places the shooter can freely go, this is especially important for places where there are many residency's, where the shooter can go from one building to another to kill more people. Forcing police to pull back on a situation will only lead to more innocent deaths.

Ifreann wrote:To arrive. It wouldn't take them any time at all to prepare because obviously when they are on call they will be ready to go at a moment's notice. It also takes ordinary police officers time to arrive, because they can't be everywhere at once, can they?

Throughout this thread people have told me that the police must be able to defend themselves, even when doing so is a direct threat to innocent life. The police are allowed to shoot at a hostage to kill the people holding him hostage, because those people are firing at the police. The police are allowed to take cover behind bystanders in their cars, because they can't just allow themselves to be shot at. Clearly the protection of innocent life is not a priority. Clearly officers with handguns and without bulletproof vests are not going to put themselves at risk to protect the public, they will put the public in danger to protect themselves.

Satuga wrote:

Ifreann wrote:To arrive. It wouldn't take them any time at all to prepare because obviously when they are on call they will be ready to go at a moment's notice. It also takes ordinary police officers time to arrive, because they can't be everywhere at once, can they?

Throughout this thread people have told me that the police must be able to defend themselves, even when doing so is a direct threat to innocent life. The police are allowed to shoot at a hostage to kill the people holding him hostage, because those people are firing at the police. The police are allowed to take cover behind bystanders in their cars, because they can't just allow themselves to be shot at. Clearly the protection of innocent life is not a priority. Clearly officers with handguns and without bulletproof vests are not going to put themselves at risk to protect the public, they will put the public in danger to protect themselves.

It still takes longer for SWAT to arrive than it takes Police officer, so yes it still takes time which is why the saying "Officers are minutes away where seconds count" exists. Even then a 10 minute response time is still better than a 20 minute response time.

This feels like a very black and white argument, you make it seem like police are another species or some shit, they are people with their own thought processes, their own actions, and own self worth.

Was this particular situation not great, yes. Will this type of situation always end the same? No, likely never. Disarming all police because of the actions of some is fucking ridiculous. What would be a better thing to do would be to increase the amount of training, or even revise the training they get. Disarmament will do nothing but help the criminals.

Ifreann wrote:

Satuga wrote:It still takes longer for SWAT to arrive than it takes Police officer, so yes it still takes time which is why the saying "Officers are minutes away where seconds count" exists. Even then a 10 minute response time is still better than a 20 minute response time.

And why do you imagine this is? Do you think that there is just some inherent property of SWAT teams that they cannot possibly respond quickly? No, of course not. You can obviously get better response times by having more teams operating out of more locations, or having SWAT patrols.

This feels like a very black and white argument, you make it seem like police are another species or some shit, they are people with their own thought processes, their own actions, and own self worth.

The police aren't another species. The police are an institution.

Was this particular situation not great, yes. Will this type of situation always end the same? No, likely never. Disarming all police because of the actions of some is fucking ridiculous. What would be a better thing to do would be to increase the amount of training, or even revise the training they get. Disarmament will do nothing but help the criminals.

Help the criminals not get shot. Which I am fine with, shooting criminals is bad and should be avoided wherever possible.

Ifreann wrote:And why do you imagine this is? Do you think that there is just some inherent property of SWAT teams that they cannot possibly respond quickly? No, of course not. You can obviously get better response times by having more teams operating out of more locations, or having SWAT patrols.

The police aren't another species. The police are an institution.

Help the criminals not get shot. Which I am fine with, shooting criminals is bad and should be avoided wherever possible.

Volinovia wrote:So the facts are this. The Police Chased a UPS Van with a hostage in it for 24 miles during 5pm traffic. The drivers of the van were involved in a robbery of a jewelry store where they shot at the owner and injured an employee. The pursuit ended at a packed intersection when the suspects shot at the officers, deputies, and troopers. To which they returned fire and killed both of the suspects, and possibly two other people. Being the hostage and the other civilian. (to my current knowledge those are the only deaths.)

I do not see a problem with the officers conduct here. This situation is not perfect in any way, size, shape, or form. The officers had no choice but to eliminate the threat right then and there and they did it in a way that probably saved a lot of people's lives. And about the police being militarized, you realize they get a discount on that stuff from the DOD. And armored vehicles for S.W.A.T are not the only usage for bearcat armored vehicles. Have you seen the videos of bearcats going onto flooded streets to help evac people?

And about patrol officers having access to long rifles and shotguns. They need those. Nothing you say will change that. Criminals have guns, some criminals have bigger guns than others. It is never a good situation when a human has to kill another human but it is a situation that happens far too often. The South LA shooting is what started all of this. When two madmen with AK-47s, (which may have been RPKs) went into a bank w/ armored piercing rounds and shot the bank up. Then they left the bank and were taken out by a LAPD S.W.A.T team. But only after they had injured a lot of people. The officers that responded to the scene had nothing that could stop them or hurt them in any way. Is that what you want? Cops to roll up to a scene and be able to do literally nothing against a person with superior firepower except die? I understand your argument comes from a perspective of concern, it concerns me too that the government fields this type of firepower. But you must understand that without this firepower more lives would be lost.

Kaeyoku wrote:I have a question: Why are you always one of the first people to notice my RMB posts on TEP??