We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
Carnivore wrote:
What policy or APPROVED training dictates storming the vehicle of a person who LE wants to "ask questions" of?
I would say that if there is such a policy or approved training then it is absolutely wrong, is deserving of a civil lawsuit of large proportions for wrongful death. If no such policy or approved training procedures exist, the officers are on their own legally, per the law.
Either way, they escalated a non violent situation to deadly force by their own actions and no one else's. That can not be tolerated.
One thing I've noticed is that the majority of "military style" assault tactics are practiced in large cities and by "joint task force" type operations. There are times when such assault techniques are called for such as in a barricaded and violent suspect who is actively causing mayhem but they are not called for in the majority of situations.
One need only look at Waco to see the ineptitude that can permeate departments/units which embrace such tactics. In Waco a standard search warrant was prosecuted as a "no knock" warrant by a huge armed group who stumbled under their own weight and opened fire because of their own mistakes (the first round was an AD by BATF) which then spun out of control until the horrible conclusion we are all so familiar with.
At Ruby Ridge, agents took tactical positions and wrongly fired upon citizens without identifying themselves and were surprised when those citizens returned fire. Later, a sniper shot and killed an unarmed worman holding a baby because someone up the chain authorized rules of engagement that were in violation of every ethical fiber of law enforcement. Namely to engage with deadly force against a "target" which was not a threat.
Were you or I to act even remotely like any of these cases (Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Pastor), we would be laying on a gurney with a state administered IV at some point.
I want every officer to make it home at the end of his shift. I don't want them afraid to use deadly force when necessary. However, they have chosen their profession and with that choice comes added risk. We can not condone the use of disproportional deady force against citizens simply to improve officer safety. Nor should we cruicify them when such force is necessary and unavoidable. Sadly, in this case, many courses of action would have led to a safe outcome for ALL including the officers, but those courses of action did not fit with the John Wayne "get the bad guy at all costs" attitudes that have, unfortunately, become all too prevalent in todays law enforcement agencies.
Is this LEO bashing? I don't believe so. I think it's an accurate accounting of a systemic problem which exists from the highest levels to the lowest and the officers on the street are the ones in the firing line working with the training and policies which are promulgated by our elected and appointed representatives.
Carnivore wrote:
What policy or APPROVED training dictates storming the vehicle of a person who LE wants to "ask questions" of?
I would say that if there is such a policy or approved training then it is absolutely wrong, is deserving of a civil lawsuit of large proportions for wrongful death. If no such policy or approved training procedures exist, the officers are on their own legally, per the law.
Either way, they escalated a non violent situation to deadly force by their own actions and no one else's. That can not be tolerated.
One thing I've noticed is that the majority of "military style" assault tactics are practiced in large cities and by "joint task force" type operations. There are times when such assault techniques are called for such as in a barricaded and violent suspect who is actively causing mayhem but they are not called for in the majority of situations.
One need only look at Waco to see the ineptitude that can permeate departments/units which embrace such tactics. In Waco a standard search warrant was prosecuted as a "no knock" warrant by a huge armed group who stumbled under their own weight and opened fire because of their own mistakes (the first round was an AD by BATF) which then spun out of control until the horrible conclusion we are all so familiar with.
At Ruby Ridge, agents took tactical positions and wrongly fired upon citizens without identifying themselves and were surprised when those citizens returned fire. Later, a sniper shot and killed an unarmed worman holding a baby because someone up the chain authorized rules of engagement that were in violation of every ethical fiber of law enforcement. Namely to engage with deadly force against a "target" which was not a threat.
Were you or I to act even remotely like any of these cases (Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Pastor), we would be laying on a gurney with a state administered IV at some point.
I want every officer to make it home at the end of his shift. I don't want them afraid to use deadly force when necessary. However, they have chosen their profession and with that choice comes added risk. We can not condone the use of disproportional deady force against citizens simply to improve officer safety. Nor should we cruicify them when such force is necessary and unavoidable. Sadly, in this case, many courses of action would have led to a safe outcome for ALL including the officers, but those courses of action did not fit with the John Wayne "get the bad guy at all costs" attitudes that have, unfortunately, become all too prevalent in todays law enforcement agencies.
Is this LEO bashing? I don't believe so. I think it's an accurate accounting of a systemic problem which exists from the highest levels to the lowest and the officers on the street are the ones in the firing line working with the training and policies which are promulgated by our elected and appointed representatives.
