@stryker1121 said:
There could be bodies in the closet, the kid's desk could have a bomb under it. Yes these are ridiculous scenarios but when SWAT gets a call that people have been shot, and hey, any officers arriving on scene will be shot, too, there's going to be a procedure to follow even if everything looks peachy on the surface. Don't blame SWAT, blame the asshat perpetrating the hoax. You seem to be coming at this story from a decidedly anti-police viewpoint.
No, I'm approaching this view from the perspective of the person on the stream and the treatment they should be subjected to. The 'asshat perpetrating the hoax' is not responsible for aggression and callous physical treatment. I would not like to suffer that treatment, and I'd like to point out how negative that treatment is without being called 'anti-police'.
We consider policing to be a noble profession that encapsulates both altruism and community safety, because of the assumption of risk they take on themselves. A cop had to assume the risk that in the defense of someone else, they could be injured or even killed. Excuse me if I have a problem with the assumption of risk now being placed entirely on regular citizens. We're told that police require all this equipment and a lot of slack when it comes to the rules in order to 'ensure officer safety', but anyone looking at this situation can immediately identify that all the risk is on the citizen. The police have entered and found an unarmed person, their tone suggests they're hostile and threatened, they're barking out contradictory orders that could very well carry the penalty of death for not following perfectly accurately, they're clad in armor and they have AR-15 rifles trained directly on the person; who is assuming all the risk in this police action?
edit: Keep in mind, the AR-15 rifle, while considered the most versatile and all-around best longarm rifle for personal defense, is also considered so dangerous and overwhelmingly powerful that most gun control advocates would not allow private citizens to own them. We have weapons that are considered so lethal that citizens cannot be trusted to own one, but it's a police staple at this point. That doesn't bother you in any way? That doesn't seem a little authoritarian to you?
Officers risking their lives until there's a proven threat is noble and admirable. It's restraint at one's own risk. What we have now is that regular citizens must risk their lives until they can prove to police that they're not a threat.
@budwyzer said:
When someone is called to clear a property they have to go in with every expectation in their mind. Are there people in there? Is everyone an enemy? Is anyone an innocent bystander? Are there traps? Weapons? Captive victims? And the only way an officer, agent, soldier, whatever can clear that place effectively without losing the life of any innocents is to assume that each person they meet is a hostile and to deal with them accordingly.
Assuming every person you meet inside a building is hostile is a great way to get innocent people shot. If we're more concerned with the safety of police officers than innocents, why even have the police officers respond to crimes? I don't believe that innocent people should have to assume greater risk than police officers. Even in an actual hostage scenario, the police assuming everyone is hostile means that the people being held hostage now have to worry about being shot by the hostage takers and the police.
So, they run across an unknown that was playing a game. Yeah, you yell at the top of your lungs for him to get his ass out of that chair, get his hands up, and plant his face on the floor. Why do you yell? Because loud noises disorient people. It's unexpected and generally makes them more compliant.
Loud noises disorient people. How are disoriented people more capable of following instructions than the average person? How does that make any sense? Especially when police refer to signs of disorientation like huddling or fleeing as excuses to treat people as hostile. They threw a flashbang at this homeless person, and when he rightfully panicked, they shot him dead. Maybe disorienting a target and threatening them with overwhelming force works to protect officer safety, but it certainly has not proven to protect the safety of the people being subjected to it.
If you meant to say that disoriented people are easier to overpower and force to comply, then yes, you'd be absolutely right. But being disoriented absolutely doesn't make anyone more capable of processing orders or information. It actually makes you less capable of processing information, especially when that information wants you to stand up and lie down at the same time.
If the person is not a hostile, then they get yelled at, have a gun pointed at them, and eventually get it all cleared up.
Or a high-strung emotional police officer loaded with adrenaline and fear for their own safety assumes everyone in the building is hostile and makes an erroneous judgment call based on a myriad of factors and that kid winds up dead.
However, they should be a little less militarized at every engagement.
The funny thing is, if they handled this in a more militarized sense, the kid would never have had a gun pointed at him.
Log in to comment