Right wing Sandy Hook "truthers". Oh brother!

[Jarhead]

Why? In an active shooter, whats the point of guarding it? You lose a man in a crucial manpower/firepower situation. You probably only have 2-3 patrol cops available to go in during that 10 minute killing spree, you just gave up 1 extra good-gun in the fight about to go down.

If you see it, you know where it was. Tell a detective later once the guy is dead.
If you dont want it used against you, pick it up, this isn't a gang murder, we dont need prints, we need to stop kids from dying down the hall.


Your attitude towards this topic was the overwhelming attitude of police pre-Columbine, and it makes sense, as most police tactics are brought over from some part of military tactics.

And police work is NOT war, very different. However, the ONE time, and almost the only time, that role flips is an active shooter. Aggressive, hunting infantry-style tactics are taught to swat teams and cops for these type situations. No more surrounding a building and waiting on SWAT. No negotiating. You go in with whoever you got, hunt him down, and kill him. **** the crime scene, let detectives worry about that. If you see a gun, pick it up....you might need the ammo.

That is how it is taught.

you are speaking as if the crime is always as it was at the school...and you are using monday morning QB information.

You are guarding it for the shooter who dropped it may return for it.....you are guarding it as evidence.

Telkling a detective afterwards is deemed as second hand information and therefore has less weight in a court of law.

Fingerprints are necessary when there is more than one shooter...to determine who fired the deadly shot(s).

FYI....military policing has nothing to do with war. It has to do with enforcing laws on the military in a country where US laws are not enforceable.

 

[bucs90]

I mean, do we need fingerprints off the gun? No. We'll know soon enough who did it when he is dead.
Do we need to know where the gun was when we found it? Maybe. We remember where we found it. But whats more imporant....preservign the soon-to-be crime scene, or stopping the guy who is killing kids?

Both are important.

You are mnistaken as it pertains to a loose gun. It is NEVER picked up by an officer.

Well, I think the same about your stance. Obviously the military police and civilian police teach a lot the same, but some different.

You are right on 99% of scenes involving a gun. DONT TOUCH IT. Most shootings are gang, drugs or family related, and are way over by the time cops get there, so yeah, on that you are right.

You are not right when it is an ongoing active shooter. If kids are dying, you DO NOT leave a man behind to guard a damn loose gun. You dont leave it for the guy to circle around and use. You pick it up, secure it, move to the threat.

Both are important, but not equally. If kids are dying, the crime scene doesnt mean shit. You are talking like a police command staffer who hasn't worked a patrol shift in decades.

Let me ask you this, then:

Say a shooting starts and two cops run in. There is a loose gun. Kids are dying. They see the loose gun. Kids are dying. Cop A tells Cop B to guard that gun, while Cop A runs to the threat. Cop A engages, but loses the gunfight and is killed. Suspect proceeds to keep killing kids while Cop B is babysitting a ******* loose gun.

You wanna be the one that explains that to the parents of kids who got killed after Cop A lost, and say "Ma'am, we had to preserve the crime scene, thats why Cop B didnt follow Cop A in".

You are just dead wrong on this, as it relates to active shooter incidents in civilian law enforcement. No disrespect, as I completely believe you if you say you were taught otherwise by the military police.

But that is NOT how domestic cops do it. And I just explained why. Kids matter first. Crime scene second.

 

[Jarhead]

Why? In an active shooter, whats the point of guarding it? You lose a man in a crucial manpower/firepower situation. You probably only have 2-3 patrol cops available to go in during that 10 minute killing spree, you just gave up 1 extra good-gun in the fight about to go down.

If you see it, you know where it was. Tell a detective later once the guy is dead.
If you dont want it used against you, pick it up, this isn't a gang murder, we dont need prints, we need to stop kids from dying down the hall.


Your attitude towards this topic was the overwhelming attitude of police pre-Columbine, and it makes sense, as most police tactics are brought over from some part of military tactics.

And police work is NOT war, very different. However, the ONE time, and almost the only time, that role flips is an active shooter. Aggressive, hunting infantry-style tactics are taught to swat teams and cops for these type situations. No more surrounding a building and waiting on SWAT. No negotiating. You go in with whoever you got, hunt him down, and kill him. **** the crime scene, let detectives worry about that. If you see a gun, pick it up....you might need the ammo.

That is how it is taught.

I am not a civilian law enforcer. I know few who are and have never really delved into this topic.

Are you involved in law enforcement? If yes, I will take your word for it. If not, we can debate this till the cows come home.

And no, I am not calling my wife a cow.....but when she comes home, I will need to log off and end the debate.

 

[Jarhead]

I mean, do we need fingerprints off the gun? No. We'll know soon enough who did it when he is dead.
Do we need to know where the gun was when we found it? Maybe. We remember where we found it. But whats more imporant....preservign the soon-to-be crime scene, or stopping the guy who is killing kids?

Both are important.

You are mnistaken as it pertains to a loose gun. It is NEVER picked up by an officer.

Well, I think the same about your stance. Obviously the military police and civilian police teach a lot the same, but some different.

You are right on 99% of scenes involving a gun. DONT TOUCH IT. Most shootings are gang, drugs or family related, and are way over by the time cops get there, so yeah, on that you are right.

You are not right when it is an ongoing active shooter. If kids are dying, you DO NOT leave a man behind to guard a damn loose gun. You dont leave it for the guy to circle around and use. You pick it up, secure it, move to the threat.

Both are important, but not equally. If kids are dying, the crime scene doesnt mean shit. You are talking like a police command staffer who hasn't worked a patrol shift in decades.

Let me ask you this, then:

Say a shooting starts and two cops run in. There is a loose gun. Kids are dying. They see the loose gun. Kids are dying. Cop A tells Cop B to guard that gun, while Cop A runs to the threat. Cop A engages, but loses the gunfight and is killed. Suspect proceeds to keep killing kids while Cop B is babysitting a ******* loose gun.

You wanna be the one that explains that to the parents of kids who got killed after Cop A lost, and say "Ma'am, we had to preserve the crime scene, thats why Cop B didnt follow Cop A in".

You are just dead wrong on this, as it relates to active shooter incidents in civilian law enforcement. No disrespect, as I completely believe you if you say you were taught otherwise by the military police.

But that is NOT how domestic cops do it. And I just explained why. Kids matter first. Crime scene second.

One thing we were taught...not just from a policing standpoint...but from all standpoints...

Follow the book, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

Yes, your example dictates otherwise.

 

[bucs90]

you are speaking as if the crime is always as it was at the school...and you are using monday morning QB information.

You are guarding it for the shooter who dropped it may return for it.....you are guarding it as evidence.

Telkling a detective afterwards is deemed as second hand information and therefore has less weight in a court of law.

Fingerprints are necessary when there is more than one shooter...to determine who fired the deadly shot(s).

FYI....military policing has nothing to do with war. It has to do with enforcing laws on the military in a country where US laws are not enforceable.

You are just wrong. See my Cop A and Cop B scenario above. You take ALL your available manpower directly to the shooter until he is stopped. Period. No exceptions. We (civilian cops) aren't gonna babysit a ******* loose gun if kids are dying. Maybe the military teaches that. We dont. If kids are dying, no cop with a gun is gonna babysit a ******* loose gun.

Court of law doesnt matter if the shooters are dead. 99% of active shooters commit suicide or are killed by the cops. Again....straight to the threat, stop the killing. Everything else is a distant second.

Fingerprints? Unless we shoot off all ten of his fingers, or the cop finger-***** the gun, you'll have DNA and prints. Grabbing it and tucking it into the waistband wont change that.

"WHo fired the deadly shots"? You do know that we cant take a gun, and a bullet, and a shell casing, and determine who fired which shot right? GSR on their hands will show whether they fired any shots at all.

You guys are watching too much CSI for real. To suggest 3 cops run into a school shooting, and we are gonna make 1 babysit a damn loose gun while kids are still being shot?????? ARE YOU ******* SERIOUS?

I better not be the parent who gets told "Sir, we woulda gotten to the guy quicker, but we had to babysit a loose gun for fingerprinting later".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The right wing is somehow confused that a bunch of cops showed up to an active shooter situation, and there was a loose assault rifle somewhere- either in a car or in the school- and some cop picked it up and secured it, not knowing if there was still a gunman alive, if he was alone, they didnt know what the hell was going on, but on any active shooter response you have 2 primary goals:

1- Get to the killer, and stop the killer
2- Secure loose weapons on the way, so he cant circle around and use them

Once the killing is stopped, then they can proceed to traditional crime scene processing. This wasn't a gang murder or a domestic murder. It was a mass killing, and the tactics are different.

Could that gun have been in the car, and a cop running to the school passing by "clears the car" as they are trained, sees a live gun, SECURES IT, and moves on, and then later there is confusion about where the gun initially was at?

Yes. Of course. Not only possible, but probable. People who have never been in chaotic situations like that, or major crime scenes, obviously wont grasp these tactics.

There was no report of a loose rifle. That's a strawman you created.

Your making up facts not in evidence.

By your logic, the cop cleared every car in the parking lot. Or did he just clear the one that happened to have a rifle in the trunk?

I have doubts whether you have ever been a part of a major crime scene. If you have then you are about incompetent as they come.

Haha, oh boy, here we go. Yes, "clearing the car" is swat team 101 basics. Especially the car that is illegally parked at the front door of the school that just got shot up that you are about to run right past. Only a ******* moron would pass that car without "clearing it". Even the trunk!!! Nobody hides in the trunk though, right (DC Snipers)?

My resume' isn't of your concern. But I worked South Atlanta for 8 years. I saw enough of 'em.

Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Was the car in question illegally parked? If so where's the evidence?

BTW it wasn't SWAT that cleared Lanza's car and it was after the fact not before.

 

[Jarhead]

You are just wrong. See my Cop A and Cop B scenario above. You take ALL your available manpower directly to the shooter until he is stopped. Period. No exceptions. We (civilian cops) aren't gonna babysit a ******* loose gun if kids are dying. Maybe the military teaches that. We dont. If kids are dying, no cop with a gun is gonna babysit a ******* loose gun.

Court of law doesnt matter if the shooters are dead. 99% of active shooters commit suicide or are killed by the cops. Again....straight to the threat, stop the killing. Everything else is a distant second.

Fingerprints? Unless we shoot off all ten of his fingers, or the cop finger-***** the gun, you'll have DNA and prints. Grabbing it and tucking it into the waistband wont change that.

"WHo fired the deadly shots"? You do know that we cant take a gun, and a bullet, and a shell casing, and determine who fired which shot right? GSR on their hands will show whether they fired any shots at all.

You guys are watching too much CSI for real. To suggest 3 cops run into a school shooting, and we are gonna make 1 babysit a damn loose gun while kids are still being shot?????? ARE YOU ******* SERIOUS?

I better not be the parent who gets told "Sir, we woulda gotten to the guy quicker, but we had to babysit a loose gun for fingerprinting later".

Read my post 204

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You and 2 other armed NRA members are driving to the range, and you hear a bunch of shots being fired at a nearby school. You brave men decide to take action, pull your guns, and run to the school. You see the front doors wide open.

As you are running in...you see a car parked right in front, illegally, and looks like the obvious suspects car. Do you run right by without glancing? No, he could have a buddy waiting to ambush the cops. So, you take a "quick glance" as you pass it, and see a loose gun. Do you:

A) Keep running, **** that gun, no one will come around for it
B) Leave 1 of your 3 armed men to babysit it
C) Pick the ****** up so no one gets it, plus, its an extra gun if you run out of ammo

The only correct answer is C.

Thats why in dynamic, active shooter situations, sometimes shit doesnt end up where it originally was found.

And thats why it takes time to sort shit out.

God you people are ******* idiots sometimes.

What does a suspects car look like? How can you see a loose gun in the trunk?

You are starting to sound like Truthmatters. Do you two frequent the same liquor store?

 

[bucs90]

Both are important.

You are mnistaken as it pertains to a loose gun. It is NEVER picked up by an officer.

Well, I think the same about your stance. Obviously the military police and civilian police teach a lot the same, but some different.

You are right on 99% of scenes involving a gun. DONT TOUCH IT. Most shootings are gang, drugs or family related, and are way over by the time cops get there, so yeah, on that you are right.

You are not right when it is an ongoing active shooter. If kids are dying, you DO NOT leave a man behind to guard a damn loose gun. You dont leave it for the guy to circle around and use. You pick it up, secure it, move to the threat.

Both are important, but not equally. If kids are dying, the crime scene doesnt mean shit. You are talking like a police command staffer who hasn't worked a patrol shift in decades.

Let me ask you this, then:

Say a shooting starts and two cops run in. There is a loose gun. Kids are dying. They see the loose gun. Kids are dying. Cop A tells Cop B to guard that gun, while Cop A runs to the threat. Cop A engages, but loses the gunfight and is killed. Suspect proceeds to keep killing kids while Cop B is babysitting a ******* loose gun.

You wanna be the one that explains that to the parents of kids who got killed after Cop A lost, and say "Ma'am, we had to preserve the crime scene, thats why Cop B didnt follow Cop A in".

You are just dead wrong on this, as it relates to active shooter incidents in civilian law enforcement. No disrespect, as I completely believe you if you say you were taught otherwise by the military police.

But that is NOT how domestic cops do it. And I just explained why. Kids matter first. Crime scene second.

One thing we were taught...not just from a policing standpoint...but from all standpoints...

Follow the book, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

Yes, your example dictates otherwise.

Ah, ok nevermind, that makes perfect sense. Yes, civilian is the same. Follow protocol unless otherwise. Or, in command staff language, "Policy is a strict guideline...but not concrete law" haha! Wolf to catch a wolf, right?

I will say, we are speaking hypothetical, becausae I dont know details about the SH shooting.

But the Columbine style shootings took law enforcement by surprise. We operated in the idea of surrounding it, calling SWAT, and digging in for a long negotiation period. Columbine changed all that, and these police Active Shooter schools are being taught by private sector groups all over the country run by ex-military guys teaching SWAT teams the really good infantry style tactics to combat these dickheads who shoot innocent people.

And yeah, it is police instinct to not touch the gun. But when kids are dying, you better pick it up and get to the fight. Thats the hardest part of training this stuff really, getting them to break old habits under stress.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You don't even know what we are talking about, so shut up! You're too lazy to follow the tread.

Sure I do.

Your suggesting that we want info from the parents and that's not the case.


And BTW I'm not black.

The discussion was about the police asking the press to not bother the parents at the parents request.

You don't know shit.

I understand that, but wouldn't that be up to the parents as to whether they want to be bothered?

I admit I don't know shit, I leave that to you liberal idiots. I do however understand reason and logic, something you on the left can't seem to grasp.

 

[bucs90]

You and 2 other armed NRA members are driving to the range, and you hear a bunch of shots being fired at a nearby school. You brave men decide to take action, pull your guns, and run to the school. You see the front doors wide open.

As you are running in...you see a car parked right in front, illegally, and looks like the obvious suspects car. Do you run right by without glancing? No, he could have a buddy waiting to ambush the cops. So, you take a "quick glance" as you pass it, and see a loose gun. Do you:

A) Keep running, **** that gun, no one will come around for it
B) Leave 1 of your 3 armed men to babysit it
C) Pick the ****** up so no one gets it, plus, its an extra gun if you run out of ammo

The only correct answer is C.

Thats why in dynamic, active shooter situations, sometimes shit doesnt end up where it originally was found.

And thats why it takes time to sort shit out.

God you people are ******* idiots sometimes.

What does a suspects car look like? How can you see a loose gun in the trunk?

You are starting to sound like Truthmatters. Do you two frequent the same liquor store?

Its called Totality of Circumstances. A cop who drives by the school daily on patrol, sees a car parked illegally where no cars are ever parked (Directly in front of the open front door) at a school that is now being shot up. Doesnt take a genius to think "That might be his car". I sure as hell am not just running right by without even taking a quick peek so I dont get shot in the back when I go by it.

 

[jknowgood]

The right wing in this country has reached westboro stage of insanity

Tm is to ignorant to realize it was the liberals that started all the outrage, and now their made because it back fired in their face. Hey tm, how does it feel that you helped arm more citizens at one time in history? Great work! Just think how many moderates you turned into republicans also.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Where in that article does it say they are RW???
Oh....because you say so!! Lol!

Deans "headlines" to his threads very seldom go along with the link he posts....but he will "rationalize" it as only he can to make it appear that it does....

 

[Truthmatters]

look at you scumbags insulting people for being discusted with this level of insanity on the right.


you people have jumped the shark.


You are calling fro mobs to drag these parents of dead children into the street and question them and call them traitors to the country.



You have reached Westboro level of crazy

 

[Truthmatters]

If you defend this insanity or insult people for being outraged by it.


YOU are westboro ******* level of crazy assed scum

 

[Truthmatters]

THIS issue right here is the PERFECT opportunity for the Republican party to distance themselves from these type of freaks of nature.


will you?

 

[regent]

I guess the guy, being a psychologist and as such, had contact with people that were a little more stable than the people that like guns? Maybe it would be an opportunity to open up a whole new psychological field of study?

 

[Truthmatters]

The republican party cant even pull its self together enough to denouce the harrassment of parents whos babies were just turned into republican calateral damage.

 

[Harry Dresden]

But....we'll get the right wingers who keep thinking this was a staged event to get gun control. ******* disgusting.

i dont believe this thing was staged.....but i would not put it pass the other variety of "Gun Nuts" we have to use this shooting to help further their agenda....

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some questions that need to be answered.

I have heard from a credible source (ex CT State Trooper) that the AR 15 was not used inside the school and that the hand guns were.

There happens to be a gag order now so no one can talk about it.

Before the government started inserting their own version of the truth, the AR 15 was never in the school and was found in the car. If you watched it unfold, the deputy searching the car could clearly be seen removing it from the back seat. Then the government told us what happened.