Replies

"I know we all wish this hadn't happened, or it had been stopped at 12 victims, but I'm not sure if this guy had run right in he would have stopped this incident right then and there."

That's true. Many situations are surprising and unexpected for police. I'll try to take a little more time with arguments more carefully written here in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

In cleaner jurisdictions, police are required to act alone more than most people are led to believe. Many have done so successfully. When an attacker is in the act of trying to murder his victims, an officer must immediately try to stop the attacker.

A calm car stop requiring an arrest of a likely dangerous someone will sometimes wait for backup. An arrest of a potentially dangerous someone asleep in his bed or high on a drug and not attacking anyone at the time might wait for a team. Not so for an attack in progress.

For other examples, a robbery or home invasion in progress must be stopped as quickly as physically possible by he who arrives alone or arrives first. If he is already on site, he must do it right now. If several officers arrive at the same time without waiting for each other, that's better.

Maybe there's a jurisdiction that allows for victims to be killed, while one officer on site waits for backup. As a local constituent, though, I wouldn't willingly, politically allow such a jurisdiction to continue that kind of policy.

How does a police officer have a better chance at prevailing in situations that would appear to weight against him? Better training and more training is the real edge. It's always been that way. So yes, backup when time allows. If a life might be saved by acting now, then act now.

I know we all wish this hadn't happened, or it had been stopped at 12 victims, but I'm not sure if this guy had run right in he would have stopped this incident right then and there.

That's true. Many situations are surprising and unexpected for police. I'll try to take a little more time with arguments more carefully written here in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

If I gave you a hard time, I proabably shouldn't have. When you're going up against a good portion of the posters on a thread, it can get a bit frustration. Thanks for this nice response.

In cleaner jurisdictions, police are required to act alone more than most people are led to believe. Many have done so successfully. When an attacker is in the act of trying to murder his victims, an officer must immediately try to stop the attacker.

In certain situations, I agree with this. In others, I truly don't. I'm not trying to be agrumentative, but there are situaitons where you can't simply charge into the home, or some other setting. You have a duty to help when you can, and an obligation to your family, the department, and the jurisdiction when you can't. You have been trained and have built up a long history of experiences and incorporated a lot of learned concepts into your policing. The department has spent a lot of money on you, and the city has a big investment in you also. You aren't only obligated to yourself, to use your head. You are an asset too. There's nothing to be ashamed about, if the cards don't seem to support your rapid direct invovlement.

A calm car stop requiring an arrest of a likely dangerous someone will sometimes wait for backup. An arrest of a potentially dangerous someone asleep in his bed or high on a drug and not attacking anyone at the time might wait for a team. Not so for an attack in progress.

I generally agree with your thoughts here. I cannot say I do in all instances. Sometimes the cirumstances do not support the idea you should go in. When they don't, I don't want an office sacrificing himself for an almost certain negative outcome. If an officer chooses to go in, I support his decision. If he choosed not to, I will generally support him. I can't say that I always could. If there was a very good chance of him being successful, I would frown on his decision not to.

For other examples, a robbery or home invasion in progress must be stopped as quickly as physically possible by he who arrives alone or arrives first. If he is already on site, he must do it right now. If several officers arrive at the same time without waiting for each other, that's better.

I don't agree that you must charge into a robbery or home invasion in progress. What you're looking at is a hostage situation, and a perp that you have no idea how he/she will react. Even with a second officer in these two scenarios, I think it's best to set the parameter and wait for a team to work on the problem. At this point, you'll need a qualified negotiator.

Maybe there's a jurisdiction that allows for victims to be killed, while one officer on site waits for backup. As a local constituent, though, I wouldn't willingly, politically allow such a jurisdiction to continue that kind of policy.

In the two above situations, rushing the home would be very problematic. First of all, the victims could be jeopardized. Second, you would be running into the barrel of a gun. As much as you would like to, there are times when you need to use your head and back off until a team arrives. Let the perp know you're there, and there's no exit. And then wait for a special tactics team to pick up the ball..

How does a police officer have a better chance at prevailing in situations that would appear to weight against him? Better training and more training is the real edge. It's always beengn that way. So yes, backup when time allows. If a life might be saved by acting now, then act now.

I have not problem with that, as long as circumstances are clear that you can effect a rescue. In most of these types of situations, there's a blind aspect to this. You have no idea where the perps are, and what their control over the hostages is. Rather than rush in, you alert them that you are there. This means they need hostages to bargain with. That's about all the stabilization you can effect safely.

These are my thoughts. Thanks for yours.