Law enforcement scenario Training 101

[Anathema]

I do not fight with actions, sir. Instead, my best shot is to reason with adversaries. Not all of them are brainwashed with fictions created in bong world. Vocabulary is my weapon. I learned this tactic from my high school phys ed teacher, Ms. Eddy. She disallowed swearing and name calling and spent one classroom day challenging the whole class to write down adjectives that would send a message and get results. And that ended all swearing for the duration of the six semesters I spent in that high school. The words on the list had to have at least 7 or more letters in them. I haven't thought of Ms. Eddy for years, but she certainly left a good habit in my life. Funny how powerful the written or spoken word is. Who woulda thunk a superior language lesson would come in a PE class...

Thst is a very honorable and exemplary way of looking at things. Your PE instructor was apparently quite an educator.

I too prefer to settle disputes with language, logic, and reason. Violence should always be the absolute LAST option in any dispute; but by taking the option out of the equation entirely; you remove a very valuable tool in keeping things from reaching that level.

If an opponent knows you will not use violence, then that option becomes a threat they can use against you in “negotiations”.

Wynonna reminds us in the song Rock Bottom:

”... I keep a clenched fist under this hat in my hand
Cause only the strong survive...”

I wish you the best. May your string of good fortune in avoiding situations where words may fail you continue.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

I do not fight with actions, sir. Instead, my best shot is to reason with adversaries. Not all of them are brainwashed with fictions created in bong world. Vocabulary is my weapon. I learned this tactic from my high school phys ed teacher, Ms. Eddy. She disallowed swearing and name calling and spent one classroom day challenging the whole class to write down adjectives that would send a message and get results. And that ended all swearing for the duration of the six semesters I spent in that high school. The words on the list had to have at least 7 or more letters in them. I haven't thought of Ms. Eddy for years, but she certainly left a good habit in my life. Funny how powerful the written or spoken word is. Who woulda thunk a superior language lesson would come in a PE class...

Thst is a very honorable and exemplary way of looking at things. Your PE instructor was apparently quite an educator.

I too prefer to settle disputes with language, logic, and reason. Violence should always be the absolute LAST option in any dispute; but by taking the option out of the equation entirely; you remove a very valuable tool in keeping things from reaching that level.

If an opponent knows you will not use violence, then that option becomes a threat they can use against you in “negotiations”.

Wynonna reminds us in the song Rock Bottom:

”... I keep a clenched fist under this hat in my hand
Cause only the strong survive...”

I wish you the best. May your string of good fortune in avoiding situations where words may fail you continue.

whoever commits the 1st act of violence is the aggressor

 

[SavannahMann]

Let's say a 350 lb Russian Judo Champion is walking down a New York City street any here's a young Asian girl screaming in a language he does not understand...

When he investigates he sees a man he could easily overpower lock eyes with him and then flee in a panic

Is he allowed to grab that individual and call the police while detaining him or does he have to let that man run away and try to figure out whether or not he was committing a crime before he detained him?


How about if our hero wasn't a big powerful man...
Let's say he was a feeble 100lb old man and he had a 9 mm pistol

Would it be legal for him to aim that weapon at the fleeing suspect and Order him to stand tall because the police were on their way?

What if the criminal ran toward him grabbed his gun and started punching him in the face?

Would he be allowed to shoot or would he have to give up his gun and take a knee?

Imagine both these scenarios presented to a court of rational American citizens and tell me what you think they would say

First. You have to consider the laws of New York and of course New York City. Chances are your vigilante hero in your story would not have a Concealed Carry Permit in NYC. So he would be a felon before the incident happened waiting to get caught.

You are trying to come up with ever more silly scenarios to make your vigilante lust not only right, but legal. And that is the problem. You never consider the laws of the area you are discussing. You pick NYC with some of the most restrictive laws in the nation and ask if this or that would be OK.

Many States have reciprocity agreements with Georgia. Let’s start there.

One of those states is Colorado. So legally my concealed weapons permit from Georgia is valid in Colorado. Now in Georgia there is no limit to the caliber or capacity of the weapon. I can carry a Glock 17 with an extended mag if I want. Twenty rounds is perfectly legal here.

In Colorado there are restrictions. I have to abide by those restrictions. My permit does not grant me the right legal or moral to violate Colorado laws. That same perfectly legal Glock from Georgia will be a problem in Colorado. I would be advised to carry a weapon that meets Colorado’s limits wouldn’t I?

Now Wyoming has Constitutional Carry. Residents don’t need a permit to tote a gun. But that same Constitutional Carry is not covered under the Reciprocity Agreement. That right ends at the State Line. If they carried in Georgia they would be breaking the law.

The old saying. The Devil is in the Details really applies to the law. Because what is legal in one state is absolutely verboten in another. New York does not honor my permit. The fact that I can carry in Georgia doesn’t matter one damned bit in New York.

My Glock is legal in Georgia. But it is illegal in Colorado. I hate to reiterate upon reiteration. But learning the laws is absolutely vital. I believe that should satisfy the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[beautress]

I do not fight with actions, sir. Instead, my best shot is to reason with adversaries. Not all of them are brainwashed with fictions created in bong world. Vocabulary is my weapon. I learned this tactic from my high school phys ed teacher, Ms. Eddy. She disallowed swearing and name calling and spent one classroom day challenging the whole class to write down adjectives that would send a message and get results. And that ended all swearing for the duration of the six semesters I spent in that high school. The words on the list had to have at least 7 or more letters in them. I haven't thought of Ms. Eddy for years, but she certainly left a good habit in my life. Funny how powerful the written or spoken word is. Who woulda thunk a superior language lesson would come in a PE class...

Thst is a very honorable and exemplary way of looking at things. Your PE instructor was apparently quite an educator.

I too prefer to settle disputes with language, logic, and reason. Violence should always be the absolute LAST option in any dispute; but by taking the option out of the equation entirely; you remove a very valuable tool in keeping things from reaching that level.

If an opponent knows you will not use violence, then that option becomes a threat they can use against you in “negotiations”.

Wynonna reminds us in the song Rock Bottom:

”... I keep a clenched fist under this hat in my hand
Cause only the strong survive...”

I wish you the best. May your string of good fortune in avoiding situations where words may fail you continue.

It's not to my credit, but the Lord's. Thanks for your kindness. If there were only more of that in Congress and the world for that matter, we wouldn't have ambitions over rightness of doings at the polls in which a camera caught people getting rid of the opposition, then hustling to several hidden caches of ballots by the thousands added several times apiece on Nov. 3. I saw the replay on my tv, and was awfully disappointed to see all that.

 

[SavannahMann]

I do not fight with actions, sir. Instead, my best shot is to reason with adversaries. Not all of them are brainwashed with fictions created in bong world. Vocabulary is my weapon. I learned this tactic from my high school phys ed teacher, Ms. Eddy. She disallowed swearing and name calling and spent one classroom day challenging the whole class to write down adjectives that would send a message and get results. And that ended all swearing for the duration of the six semesters I spent in that high school. The words on the list had to have at least 7 or more letters in them. I haven't thought of Ms. Eddy for years, but she certainly left a good habit in my life. Funny how powerful the written or spoken word is. Who woulda thunk a superior language lesson would come in a PE class...

Thst is a very honorable and exemplary way of looking at things. Your PE instructor was apparently quite an educator.

I too prefer to settle disputes with language, logic, and reason. Violence should always be the absolute LAST option in any dispute; but by taking the option out of the equation entirely; you remove a very valuable tool in keeping things from reaching that level.

If an opponent knows you will not use violence, then that option becomes a threat they can use against you in “negotiations”.

Wynonna reminds us in the song Rock Bottom:

”... I keep a clenched fist under this hat in my hand
Cause only the strong survive...”

I wish you the best. May your string of good fortune in avoiding situations where words may fail you continue.

whoever commits the 1st act of violence is the aggressor

You like scenarios. Try this one on for size.

we are neighbors and we detest each other. Every day is insults and threats. One night we are both outside. I say. “One of these days I am going to kill you.” I reach inside my jacket.

You pull a gun and shoot me. Who was the aggressor? Does it matter I was reaching for a cigarette? You just shot an unarmed man. One who posed no threat to you. Who was the aggressor?

 

[Canon Shooter]

While there's no legal obligation to use deadly force to protect a stranger, that is allowable in some states.

Alright. I’m somewhat surprised by that, barring an actual threat to loss of life, but I’ll admit to not knowing the intricacies of every state’s regulations. I can say its not something I would ever be likely to do.

Why would you think that you wouldn't have sound legal ground to stand on if you elected to protect a stranger?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Let's say a 350 lb Russian Judo Champion is walking down a New York City street any here's a young Asian girl screaming in a language he does not understand...

When he investigates he sees a man he could easily overpower lock eyes with him and then flee in a panic

Is he allowed to grab that individual and call the police while detaining him or does he have to let that man run away and try to figure out whether or not he was committing a crime before he detained him?

No.

An Asian girl screaming in a language the judo champ can't understand does not offer a sufficient basis for which to detain someone...

How about if our hero wasn't a big powerful man...
Let's say he was a feeble 100lb old man and he had a 9 mm pistol

Would it be legal for him to aim that weapon at the fleeing suspect and Order him to stand tall because the police were on their way?

No, again, because someone screaming in a language he does not understand does not offer a sufficient basis for which to detain someone...

What if the criminal ran toward him grabbed his gun and started punching him in the face?

And here's your fail.

You've identified the guy as a criminal when you have no reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. Therefore, introducing a firearm into the mix would be the initial aggressive action, thereby negating the ability of the person with the gun to claim self defense.

Secondly, the concept of escalation of force would dictate that the person with the gun try lesser measures to subdue the person. Again, though, that would only be if there was a reason to believe a crime had been committed and, in the scenario you've presented, that reason does not exist...

Imagine both these scenarios presented to a court of rational American citizens and tell me what you think they would say

Presented with the evidence you've presented here?

I believe a jury of rational Americans would find that the judo champ, or the guy with the gun, acted unreasonably and, as such, bears the full responsibility for how subsequent events transpire.

If you're going to be an idiot in the other thread, it figures that you'll be an idiot in this one, too...

thank God I don't have a coward like you for a neighbor

I happen to know the law, and I'm well trained in the use of deadly force.

You, on the other hand, seemingly believe that shooting someone between the eyes is a justifiable punishment for jaywalking...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I do not fight with actions, sir. Instead, my best shot is to reason with adversaries. Not all of them are brainwashed with fictions created in bong world. Vocabulary is my weapon. I learned this tactic from my high school phys ed teacher, Ms. Eddy. She disallowed swearing and name calling and spent one classroom day challenging the whole class to write down adjectives that would send a message and get results. And that ended all swearing for the duration of the six semesters I spent in that high school. The words on the list had to have at least 7 or more letters in them. I haven't thought of Ms. Eddy for years, but she certainly left a good habit in my life. Funny how powerful the written or spoken word is. Who woulda thunk a superior language lesson would come in a PE class...

Thst is a very honorable and exemplary way of looking at things. Your PE instructor was apparently quite an educator.

I too prefer to settle disputes with language, logic, and reason. Violence should always be the absolute LAST option in any dispute; but by taking the option out of the equation entirely; you remove a very valuable tool in keeping things from reaching that level.

If an opponent knows you will not use violence, then that option becomes a threat they can use against you in “negotiations”.

Wynonna reminds us in the song Rock Bottom:

”... I keep a clenched fist under this hat in my hand
Cause only the strong survive...”

I wish you the best. May your string of good fortune in avoiding situations where words may fail you continue.

whoever commits the 1st act of violence is the aggressor

In the case at hand, then, it's clearly Travis McMichael...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Let's say a 350 lb Russian Judo Champion is walking down a New York City street any here's a young Asian girl screaming in a language he does not understand...

When he investigates he sees a man he could easily overpower lock eyes with him and then flee in a panic

Is he allowed to grab that individual and call the police while detaining him or does he have to let that man run away and try to figure out whether or not he was committing a crime before he detained him?


How about if our hero wasn't a big powerful man...
Let's say he was a feeble 100lb old man and he had a 9 mm pistol

Would it be legal for him to aim that weapon at the fleeing suspect and Order him to stand tall because the police were on their way?

What if the criminal ran toward him grabbed his gun and started punching him in the face?

Would he be allowed to shoot or would he have to give up his gun and take a knee?

Imagine both these scenarios presented to a court of rational American citizens and tell me what you think they would say

First. You have to consider the laws of New York and of course New York City. Chances are your vigilante hero in your story would not have a Concealed Carry Permit in NYC. So he would be a felon before the incident happened waiting to get caught.

You are trying to come up with ever more silly scenarios to make your vigilante lust not only right, but legal. And that is the problem. You never consider the laws of the area you are discussing. You pick NYC with some of the most restrictive laws in the nation and ask if this or that would be OK.

Many States have reciprocity agreements with Georgia. Let’s start there.

One of those states is Colorado. So legally my concealed weapons permit from Georgia is valid in Colorado. Now in Georgia there is no limit to the caliber or capacity of the weapon. I can carry a Glock 17 with an extended mag if I want. Twenty rounds is perfectly legal here.

In Colorado there are restrictions. I have to abide by those restrictions. My permit does not grant me the right legal or moral to violate Colorado laws. That same perfectly legal Glock from Georgia will be a problem in Colorado. I would be advised to carry a weapon that meets Colorado’s limits wouldn’t I?

Now Wyoming has Constitutional Carry. Residents don’t need a permit to tote a gun. But that same Constitutional Carry is not covered under the Reciprocity Agreement. That right ends at the State Line. If they carried in Georgia they would be breaking the law.

The old saying. The Devil is in the Details really applies to the law. Because what is legal in one state is absolutely verboten in another. New York does not honor my permit. The fact that I can carry in Georgia doesn’t matter one damned bit in New York.

My Glock is legal in Georgia. But it is illegal in Colorado. I hate to reiterate upon reiteration. But learning the laws is absolutely vital. I believe that should satisfy the Department of Redundancy Department.

You are putting waaaaaaay too much common sense out there. There's not a chanc e in Hell the Guerilla comprehends it...

 

[justinacolmena]

In Colorado there are restrictions. I have to abide by those restrictions. My permit does not grant me the right legal or moral to violate Colorado laws. That same perfectly legal Glock from Georgia will be a problem in Colorado. I would be advised to carry a weapon that meets Colorado’s limits wouldn’t I?

Now Wyoming has Constitutional Carry. Residents don’t need a permit to tote a gun. But that same Constitutional Carry is not covered under the Reciprocity Agreement. That right ends at the State Line. If they carried in Georgia they would be breaking the law.

The old saying. The Devil is in the Details really applies to the law. Because what is legal in one state is absolutely verboten in another. New York does not honor my permit. The fact that I can carry in Georgia doesn’t matter one damned bit in New York.

My Glock is legal in Georgia. But it is illegal in Colorado. I hate to reiterate upon reiteration. But learning the laws is absolutely vital. I believe that should satisfy the Department of Redundancy Department.

Dude they're full of shit at the police station, you're fuckin' “armed and dangerous” and shit, they're full of shit in a court of law, and you're about to be arrested late at night in a bad part of town after your car breaks down and you're trying to figure out how why your brake light bulbs are burning out all the time. It'll be impounded and auctioned off go toward your traffic fines while you're serving your prison time on those out-of-state gun charges. You act like you don't know shit about how a modern court system works to jail your ass on a felony record for all that shit with a civil commitment for mental illness to boot better take your meds you're a danger to yourself or others there's a few Karens or concerned citizens in your community filing a petition to revoke your gun rights right now. Who the fuck you think you're kidding? Even if guns are 100% legal no question you're still going to jail because the cops don't want you to carry they want your ass in prison, and it's what they want that counts for the judge.

 

[fncceo]

The damned cops need to be coerced, compelled, forced and disciplined into minding their own damned business

Can we tell the million or so people who call the police every day about their neighbors to mind their own business?

It would certainly cut down on the paperwork.

 

[fncceo]

An individual citizen, in a public environment, regardless of size or armament, has no legal mandate or power to intervene in a conflict between other individuals.

Tell that to Batman...

 

[fncceo]

we are neighbors and we detest each other. Every day is insults and threats.

As a long time city-dweller, I can't wrap my head around the concept of talking to your neighbors.

 

[justinacolmena]

The damned cops need to be coerced, compelled, forced and disciplined into minding their own damned business

Can we tell the million or so people who call the police every day about their neighbors to mind their own business?

It would certainly cut down on the paperwork.

The cops need to stop (a) listening in to all of our non-emergency calls, (b) arbitrarily suspending cell or land-line phone service in some areas, (c) trafficking non-emergency calls to the 911 dispatch system, (d) refusing to connect normal phone calls to the intended parties, and (e) using reverse 911 systems to harass suspects or run warrant checks on targeted individuals whose phones are geolocated in certain areas.

 

[fncceo]

The damned cops need to be coerced, compelled, forced and disciplined into minding their own damned business

Can we tell the million or so people who call the police every day about their neighbors to mind their own business?

It would certainly cut down on the paperwork.

The cops need to stop (a) listening in to all of our non-emergency calls, (b) arbitrarily suspending cell or land-line phone service in some areas, (c) trafficking non-emergency calls to the 911 dispatch system, (d) refusing to connect normal phone calls to the intended parties, and (e) using reverse 911 systems to harass suspects or run warrant checks on targeted individuals whose phones are geolocated in certain areas.

I think you're confusing your phone company with the police department.

It's a common mistake. Just keep repeating to yourself, the phone company is the one that sends you a bill every month.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's say a 350 lb Russian Judo Champion is walking down a New York City street any here's a young Asian girl screaming in a language he does not understand...

When he investigates he sees a man he could easily overpower lock eyes with him and then flee in a panic

Is he allowed to grab that individual and call the police while detaining him or does he have to let that man run away and try to figure out whether or not he was committing a crime before he detained him?


How about if our hero wasn't a big powerful man...
Let's say he was a feeble 100lb old man and he had a 9 mm pistol

Would it be legal for him to aim that weapon at the fleeing suspect and Order him to stand tall because the police were on their way?

What if the criminal ran toward him grabbed his gun and started punching him in the face?

Would he be allowed to shoot or would he have to give up his gun and take a knee?

Imagine both these scenarios presented to a court of rational American citizens and tell me what you think they would say

How does he shoot anyone when his gun was taken away?

 

[Moonglow]

The damned cops need to be coerced, compelled, forced and disciplined into minding their own damned business

Can we tell the million or so people who call the police every day about their neighbors to mind their own business?

It would certainly cut down on the paperwork.

The cops need to stop (a) listening in to all of our non-emergency calls, (b) arbitrarily suspending cell or land-line phone service in some areas, (c) trafficking non-emergency calls to the 911 dispatch system, (d) refusing to connect normal phone calls to the intended parties, and (e) using reverse 911 systems to harass suspects or run warrant checks on targeted individuals whose phones are geolocated in certain areas.

I think you're confusing your phone company with the police department.

It's a common mistake. Just keep repeating to yourself, the phone company is the one that sends you a bill every month.

She must have a party line.

 

[fncceo]

Let's say a 350 lb Russian Judo Champion is walking down a New York City street any here's a young Asian girl screaming in a language he does not understand...

When he investigates he sees a man he could easily overpower lock eyes with him and then flee in a panic

Is he allowed to grab that individual and call the police while detaining him or does he have to let that man run away and try to figure out whether or not he was committing a crime before he detained him?


How about if our hero wasn't a big powerful man...
Let's say he was a feeble 100lb old man and he had a 9 mm pistol

Would it be legal for him to aim that weapon at the fleeing suspect and Order him to stand tall because the police were on their way?

What if the criminal ran toward him grabbed his gun and started punching him in the face?

Would he be allowed to shoot or would he have to give up his gun and take a knee?

Imagine both these scenarios presented to a court of rational American citizens and tell me what you think they would say

How does he shoot anyone when his gun was taken away?

 

[justinacolmena]

I think you're confusing your phone company with the police department.

The National Security Agency: Missions, Authorities, Oversight and Partnerships

A succinct description of NSA

www.nsa.gov

"That's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse."
--President Obama, May 23, 2013

Fusion Centers | Homeland Security

Fusion Centers are focal points in states and major urban areas for the receipt, analysis, gathering and sharing of threat-related information between SLTT.

www.dhs.gov

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

Information Fusion System for Counter-Terrorism Operations | SBIR.gov

www.sbir.gov

CFATS Risk-Based Performance Standard (RBPS) 10 — Monitoring | CISA

RBPS 10 — Monitoring is the performance standard for inspection, testing, maintenance, and calibration of security systems, communications and warning systems, and other equipment, as well as any repairs, upgrades, or improvements that need to be made.

www.cisa.gov

 

[Moonglow]

The damned cops need to be coerced, compelled, forced and disciplined into minding their own damned business

Can we tell the million or so people who call the police every day about their neighbors to mind their own business?

It would certainly cut down on the paperwork.

The cops need to stop (a) listening in to all of our non-emergency calls, (b) arbitrarily suspending cell or land-line phone service in some areas, (c) trafficking non-emergency calls to the 911 dispatch system, (d) refusing to connect normal phone calls to the intended parties, and (e) using reverse 911 systems to harass suspects or run warrant checks on targeted individuals whose phones are geolocated in certain areas.

The airwaves are like free, man...Your signals can be collected because you don't want them and the air is owned by the govt., just like rivers are, the banks of rivers, lakes and the banks of lakes just to name a few items they own because they can...Which is why the use of breathalyzers and urinalysis is legal, because you release these items from yer body, because you don't want them and the govt. can collect them(nasty)...