Remember Uvalde when 'Ironsides' heavily armed troops stood by, cowering behind vehicles while kids were being massacred? No humanity, no shame for this gun loving right-to-lifer!
Remember Uvalde when 'Ironsides' heavily armed troops stood by, cowering behind vehicles while kids were being massacred? No humanity, no shame for this gun loving right-to-lifer!
Says a lot about police who do not want to get massacred themselves becasue civilians have weapons of mass destruction. If police are afraid of the weaponry, that is grounds for gun control and they should be behind it.
Ally, I believe you were or are in the police force-- do they really think more is better? We cannot fill positions for police here, I would think dealing with violence with gun-toting citizens would steer people away. Or not respond quickly to stay safe. I do not blame them, but they are our first responders...
Yes, retired after 28 years full time and 7 years part time. The answers to your questions are my opinion/observations only:
Yes, they do think more is better. More staffing, more equipment, especially when it comes to that small percentage of calls that are what we used to refer to as "high pucker factor". Responding to armed subject calls are ALWAYS of that nature.
Police recruiting is down for a variety of reasons; the two that I heard most often were the danger and not having enough appropriate equipment to deal with the situations, and the "disrespect" that "most" citizens have for law enforcement. There are also the standards that potential recruits must meet, both from a physical fitness standard and from a psychological and/or educational standard. These requirements exist mostly to "weed out" unacceptable candidates early in the process, but also to ensure that the applicant can physically do the job.
The main argument for more "tactical" equipment is exactly what you cite: The violence potential from gun-toting citizens. There have been police incidents (Newhall in San Diego, where dead officers had reloaded their revolvers and, per their range training, put the spent shells in their pockets. This started the ("realistic police training" movement) and the North Hollywood bank robbery where the responding officers were completely outgunned by the bank robbers and had to resort to going to a gun shop to get rifles, which started the nationwide movement to arm street officers with semi automatic rifles.
Your last two sentences are profound. Often times the "speed" at which law enforcement responds to an incident seem slow, but there are a myriad of variables that need to be addressed as cops respond to a call; safe approach, site assessment, concern for bystanders, accurate scene assessment, adequate personnel to handle the situation and appropriate equipment. I have a ton of anecdotal information on these issues and situations, but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet to make a readable response.
There is case law out of NY that says that law enforcement does not have an implied "duty to respond" in a dangerous situation where they could be injured or killed. Radiolab has an excellent podcast on that event:
It is contrary to most law enforcement training and most law enforcement mind set, Yet there is case law that protects officers who decide to protect themselves.
Whoa, Ally, you really delivered! Thank you so much for that perspective from someone who has been there. Like most things, policing is not a simplistic job and has multi-faceted issues. I had not thought about the state to state laws that protect or do not protect an officer's response. I look forward to listening to your recommended podcastтАФmany thanks for such a well-thought out response! (as usual!).
Ally, I listened to that podcast just now. It was so enlightening to understand the difference between "Must" and "Shall" in an officer's duty to protect. Okay, I get that now. But certain circumstances seem to be non-negotiable for intervention. Uvalde was so distressing how long it took.
Or, if there is a restraining order on a violent person, it does seem that that would be is a "must" duty to protect, as in that case of a woman and her three children discussed in the podcast. As a therapist, I have actually witnessed that same reluctant behavior of police not intervening, even if report after report after report is made тАФwith a dangerous person, who owns guns and is using daily stalking behavior to terrify a mother and her young children.
On there other hand, I have seen police officers who deeply understand that incredible fear induced by stalkers on women and I know two in the past two years who are willing to be on call to intervene, interview the stalker and try to get them to mend their ways before they have to be taken in for violating court orders. Thank goodness there are cops out there who choose to "keep the peace" in incredibly difficult positions. I now understand, after this podcast, that they actually appear to be going beyond their call of dutyтАФif it puts themselves in danger. What an incredibly difficult job and the choices they have to make. Much respect for your years in the force, Ally. I hope you are truly enjoying the ocean and life in your retirement! ....well, with the exception of having to stay alert to democracy vs fascism.....
Mike, their utter dereliction of duty absolutely disgusts me. I cannot speak with any knowledge about the training that Texas requires for law enforcement certification; I know that by the time I retired in 2013 (and quit researching police use of force) states in the south and south east lagged far behind what we do on the west coast.
I was working as the daytime contract deputy in my town of 5K (one each elementary, middle, and high school) when Sandy Hook occurred. I spent quite a bit of time at all the schools the following couple of weeks, but most (as you might imagine) at the elementary school. My night-time compatriot (who came on duty just as schools were dismissing for the day) talked about our tactical response plans.
Our town is 8 miles south of where our main office is; response time by other officers is, at best, 5 minutes (other deputies, officers from neighboring jurisdictions, the State Patrol). We decided that if cover couldn't get there within a couple of minutes after our arrival on scene, we would go in solo. Period, even though that was in contravention of our training. We also had 3 deputies that lived in our little town; all three were within a 3 minute response, and all of them knew of and agreed with our plan. I thankfully was never confronted with this and I was prepared to respond.
I cannot imagine being there at Uvalde and NOT going in.
Remember Uvalde when 'Ironsides' heavily armed troops stood by, cowering behind vehicles while kids were being massacred? No humanity, no shame for this gun loving right-to-lifer!
It was much worse than what you describe.
Well armed grown men sat in the hall right outside the closed classroom door with semi-automatic rifles WITHOUT storming the room for like 30 minutes.
Finally, after basically all the kids were dead, one guy finally opened the door (it was unlocked) and shot the guy.
Says a lot about the training these guys went through. Not much.
Says a lot about police who do not want to get massacred themselves becasue civilians have weapons of mass destruction. If police are afraid of the weaponry, that is grounds for gun control and they should be behind it.
But they aren't. They instead argue for "better" weaponry and "response vehicles".
Ally, I believe you were or are in the police force-- do they really think more is better? We cannot fill positions for police here, I would think dealing with violence with gun-toting citizens would steer people away. Or not respond quickly to stay safe. I do not blame them, but they are our first responders...
Yes, retired after 28 years full time and 7 years part time. The answers to your questions are my opinion/observations only:
Yes, they do think more is better. More staffing, more equipment, especially when it comes to that small percentage of calls that are what we used to refer to as "high pucker factor". Responding to armed subject calls are ALWAYS of that nature.
Police recruiting is down for a variety of reasons; the two that I heard most often were the danger and not having enough appropriate equipment to deal with the situations, and the "disrespect" that "most" citizens have for law enforcement. There are also the standards that potential recruits must meet, both from a physical fitness standard and from a psychological and/or educational standard. These requirements exist mostly to "weed out" unacceptable candidates early in the process, but also to ensure that the applicant can physically do the job.
The main argument for more "tactical" equipment is exactly what you cite: The violence potential from gun-toting citizens. There have been police incidents (Newhall in San Diego, where dead officers had reloaded their revolvers and, per their range training, put the spent shells in their pockets. This started the ("realistic police training" movement) and the North Hollywood bank robbery where the responding officers were completely outgunned by the bank robbers and had to resort to going to a gun shop to get rifles, which started the nationwide movement to arm street officers with semi automatic rifles.
Your last two sentences are profound. Often times the "speed" at which law enforcement responds to an incident seem slow, but there are a myriad of variables that need to be addressed as cops respond to a call; safe approach, site assessment, concern for bystanders, accurate scene assessment, adequate personnel to handle the situation and appropriate equipment. I have a ton of anecdotal information on these issues and situations, but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet to make a readable response.
There is case law out of NY that says that law enforcement does not have an implied "duty to respond" in a dangerous situation where they could be injured or killed. Radiolab has an excellent podcast on that event:
https://radiolab.org/podcast/no-special-duty
It is contrary to most law enforcement training and most law enforcement mind set, Yet there is case law that protects officers who decide to protect themselves.
Whoa, Ally, you really delivered! Thank you so much for that perspective from someone who has been there. Like most things, policing is not a simplistic job and has multi-faceted issues. I had not thought about the state to state laws that protect or do not protect an officer's response. I look forward to listening to your recommended podcastтАФmany thanks for such a well-thought out response! (as usual!).
warmly,
Penelope
Thank you for your kind words. I do my best to convey my experiences when they are germain to conversations.
Ally, I listened to that podcast just now. It was so enlightening to understand the difference between "Must" and "Shall" in an officer's duty to protect. Okay, I get that now. But certain circumstances seem to be non-negotiable for intervention. Uvalde was so distressing how long it took.
Or, if there is a restraining order on a violent person, it does seem that that would be is a "must" duty to protect, as in that case of a woman and her three children discussed in the podcast. As a therapist, I have actually witnessed that same reluctant behavior of police not intervening, even if report after report after report is made тАФwith a dangerous person, who owns guns and is using daily stalking behavior to terrify a mother and her young children.
On there other hand, I have seen police officers who deeply understand that incredible fear induced by stalkers on women and I know two in the past two years who are willing to be on call to intervene, interview the stalker and try to get them to mend their ways before they have to be taken in for violating court orders. Thank goodness there are cops out there who choose to "keep the peace" in incredibly difficult positions. I now understand, after this podcast, that they actually appear to be going beyond their call of dutyтАФif it puts themselves in danger. What an incredibly difficult job and the choices they have to make. Much respect for your years in the force, Ally. I hope you are truly enjoying the ocean and life in your retirement! ....well, with the exception of having to stay alert to democracy vs fascism.....
Mike, their utter dereliction of duty absolutely disgusts me. I cannot speak with any knowledge about the training that Texas requires for law enforcement certification; I know that by the time I retired in 2013 (and quit researching police use of force) states in the south and south east lagged far behind what we do on the west coast.
I was working as the daytime contract deputy in my town of 5K (one each elementary, middle, and high school) when Sandy Hook occurred. I spent quite a bit of time at all the schools the following couple of weeks, but most (as you might imagine) at the elementary school. My night-time compatriot (who came on duty just as schools were dismissing for the day) talked about our tactical response plans.
Our town is 8 miles south of where our main office is; response time by other officers is, at best, 5 minutes (other deputies, officers from neighboring jurisdictions, the State Patrol). We decided that if cover couldn't get there within a couple of minutes after our arrival on scene, we would go in solo. Period, even though that was in contravention of our training. We also had 3 deputies that lived in our little town; all three were within a 3 minute response, and all of them knew of and agreed with our plan. I thankfully was never confronted with this and I was prepared to respond.
I cannot imagine being there at Uvalde and NOT going in.