|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I remember reading an article several years ago where a US Army officer said that when it came to cornering someone inside a house in Iraq, he was literally under stricter rules of engagement than the cops are. The army would surround the house and basically wait the guy out, and more often than not the dude would surrender within like 24 hours. If I remember right, actually breaking into the house was considered extremely risky and a last resort, and he'd have to get permission from further up the chain of command to do so. well i mean this is just real obvious tactics. why go into an area where enemies could be posted up and prepared for you when you can surround them and wait for them to run out of supplies? plus a house's entrance is a dangerous chokepoint that gives your enemies a pretty nice advantage. edit: plus if you outnumber them then less of them can rest and for shorter periods of time, so they should become fatigued p fast Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Apr 16, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Condiv posted:well i mean this is just real obvious tactics. why go into an area where enemies could be posted up and prepared for you when you can surround them and wait for them to run out of supplies? plus a house's entrance is a dangerous chokepoint that gives your enemies a pretty nice advantage. well yeah but if the person is a dealer maybe they could do their pounds and pounds of drugs in the 24 hours the police are waiting for them huh did u think of that think of public safety!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
'Soldiers vs armed combatants' is a pretty apples-to-oranges comparison for 'Police vs civilian suspects' in an overwhelming majority of situations and we probably don't want them to be handling those scenarios the same way. Also the Military policy is quite patently concerned with protecting the lives of its own soldiers than those of the people in the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:'Soldiers vs armed combatants' is a pretty apples-to-oranges comparison for 'Police vs civilian suspects' in an overwhelming majority of situations and we probably don't want them to be handling those scenarios the same way. The point being, that police regularly murder unarmed people and claim it's because nearly anyone could be armed and attacking them, and yet in the profession where this is more likely true, they are less aggressive and more protective of human life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The point being, that police regularly murder unarmed people and claim it's because nearly anyone could be armed and attacking them, and yet in the profession where this is more likely true, they are less aggressive and more protective of human life. Yes, but they're principally being more protective of their own lives. Police can do cavalier poo poo like forced entries because in reality they are very unlikely to be shot at. Police should definitely kill less people and spend less time trying to LARP a Tom Clancy novel though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I remember reading an article several years ago where a US Army officer said that when it came to cornering someone inside a house in Iraq, he was literally under stricter rules of engagement than the cops are. The army would surround the house and basically wait the guy out, and more often than not the dude would surrender within like 24 hours. If I remember right, actually breaking into the house was considered extremely risky and a last resort, and he'd have to get permission from further up the chain of command to do so. EDIT: Voyager I posted:'Soldiers vs armed combatants' is a pretty apples-to-oranges comparison for 'Police vs civilian suspects' in an overwhelming majority of situations and we probably don't want them to be handling those scenarios the same way. High risk warrant service: 
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:High risk warrant service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
And you would prefer the police do that on a regular basis? Because "call in an air strike or artillery" is a pretty common response to armed enemies behind a barricade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Except this one was terrible to the point they actually had to pay damages and most definitely should not be a repeated course of action for a civilian service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Yes, but they're principally being more protective of their own lives. Police can do cavalier poo poo like forced entries because in reality they are very unlikely to be shot at. Yes, but that's not what they claim. I believe the poster was highlighting the fact that police are full of poo poo and the people who actually are potentially shot at every day aren't as bad as them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I agree that police should not be allowed to bomb houses. That's why I linked it in response to Dead Reckoning's joke about what it might be like if the police were more like the military. It was a time that the police did bomb a place, and it was bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes, but that's not what they claim. The police greatly exaggerate the hazards of their profession. Soldiers may not be inherently better or worse, but they don't get to pull the same stunts because it will actually get them killed. If police routinely died playing cowboy they would probably have stricter regulations on how they're allowed to approach potentially dangerous situations as well. They should still have stricter regulations, but not for the same reasons that soldiers do and they probably shouldn't be modeled very closely on the military.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The point being, that police regularly murder unarmed people and claim it's because nearly anyone could be armed and attacking them, and yet in the profession where this is more likely true, they are less aggressive and more protective of human life. something like 100,00 civilians died in iraq because of us. The US military surrounded an entire city and then forced every male between the ages of 15 and 55 back into the city when they tried to flee. Then the military tried their best to kill everybody inside. Are you really gonna hold them and our war on terror as paragons of restraint? The police definitely are responsible for the fear minorities have of us, but the military has made an entire generation of children afraid of the loving sky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I believe the poster was highlighting the fact that police are full of poo poo and the people who actually are potentially shot at every day aren't as bad as them. Now I really want to buy archives so that I can see what D&D was saying about the military's restraint and humanity during the "collateral murder" days. Voyager I posted:The police greatly exaggerate the hazards of their profession. Soldiers may not be inherently better or worse, but they don't get to pull the same stunts because it will actually get them killed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Don't you dare suggest that our boys in blue aren't in the most dangerous job in the world. American Exceptionalism at it's finest. We are the greatest country, and we have the best loving criminals too. Watch out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Boy it sure is weird how everytime a police dept comes under scrutiny from one of hese questionable shootings it turns out they all have shady corruption and/or unchecked racism behind the scenes Must just be a wild statistical coincedence
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Well, it would make sense that the distribution of unjustified shootings would fall heavily in the poorly run and racist departments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
The hits dont stop. Even when the victim stops moving http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/video-shows-cops-arrest-healthy-man-hours-later-hes-icu-coma-severe-injuries http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-gilmor-homes-arrest-folo-20150415-story.html quote:Video Shows Cops Arrest Healthy Man, Hours Later He’s in ICU in a Coma With Severe Injuries quote:A man injured in a videotaped encounter with Baltimore police near Gilmor Homes this week had surgery and remained in a coma Wednesday, while the Police Department still declined to comment on why he was arrested or how he was hurt. Nickel ride? Must be a myth propagated by dirty cop-haters! http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hear-nickel-ride-philly-cops-gave-man-one-tax-payers-giving-490k/ quote:Ever Hear of a “Nickel Ride”? Philly Cops Gave this Man One, Now Tax-payers are Giving Him $490K
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Or maybe, in a world where even the seattle pd had to have federal babysitters assigned after they were looked into, this is a widespread phenomenon and departments are being popped now because citizen complaints about their misconduct aren't being dismissed as a matter of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:because citizen complaints about their misconduct aren't being dismissed as a matter of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well, his training was falsified... Impressively, the only major difference between his actions and the actions of a fully trained American police officer is that he killed an unarmed and subdued suspect accidentally instead of intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:The police greatly exaggerate the hazards of their profession. Yes, that's the point. Branis posted:something like 100,00 civilians died in iraq because of us. The US military surrounded an entire city and then forced every male between the ages of 15 and 55 back into the city when they tried to flee. Then the military tried their best to kill everybody inside. Are you really gonna hold them and our war on terror as paragons of restraint? The police definitely are responsible for the fear minorities have of us, but the military has made an entire generation of children afraid of the loving sky. Dead Reckoning posted:LOL we killed a poo poo ton of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, a bunch of guys went to jail for planting guns on dead Afghans, so I guess the military and the police are closer than you think. LOL if you think I'm admiring the military's restraint. Police are cowards who bullshit about how dangerous their job is to get away with being trigger happy assholes. If you had guys going to jail for planting weapons, you're already doing better than US police. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Military: So this militant that we know is armed and wants to make us die ran into that house over there. We have him outnumbered 30:1 and are just going to wait him out. He can't stay in there forever. Police: I THINK I SMELL WEED AND MIGHT HAVE HEARD A TOILET FLUSH THEY'RE DESTROYING EVIDENCE QUICK SMASH IN THE DOOR, THROW A FLASHBANG IN EVERY ROOM, CALL IN EVERY SWAT TEAM WE CAN, AND IF HE SO MUCH AS LOOKS LIKE HE MIGHT BE THREATENING ONE OF US SHOOT HIM 90 TIMES OR HELL JUST DO IT IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT gently caress IT HE'S OBVIOUSLY A DRUG DEALER BECAUSE I SAID SO OK GO!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And you would prefer the police do that on a regular basis? Because "call in an air strike or artillery" is a pretty common response to armed enemies behind a barricade. The USA has actually called in air strikes and artillery on its own citizens within its own borders to help police capture/eliminate some criminals.  In maybe the best known of those events, the police also summarily executed the dudes that surrendered after bringing them back to the police station and insuring they were unarmed and cuffed. It was a lovely execution though since half of them lived through it, though they did succeed at killing 5 of them. Lots of bad press for that. The 1950s were some crazy times man. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Military: So this militant that we know is armed and wants to make us die ran into that house over there. We have him outnumbered 30:1 and are just going to wait him out. He can't stay in there forever. I know the second part is sarcastic, but it really cannot be overemphasized that Police and Soldiers aren't doing the same jobs and thus pointing out that they handle superficially similar situations in very different manners is meaningless. Hell, if they were handling it the way the Military does ('going in would be dangerous, just level the building on them' being a perfectly reasonable response in a military context) I would take it as a cause for serious alarm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I know the second part is sarcastic, but it really cannot be overemphasized that Police and Soldiers aren't doing the same jobs and thus pointing out that they handle superficially similar situations in very different manners is meaningless. Hell, if they were handling it the way the Military does ('going in would be dangerous, just level the building on them' being a perfectly reasonable response in a military context) I would take it as a cause for serious alarm. The second post was also kind of meant to highlight how insane the police in America have gotten in some cases. "I don't know, I thought I smelled weed, I guess" is enough justification for the police to knock down your door. Once that happens "I felt threatened" is enough justification to gun down whoever they feel like. Both statements could be completely and utterly false but the response is to pat the cop on the back and say "good job!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are. No, the issue is that you're misinterpreting the behavior of the military and making comparisons that are only superficially similar. It's not restraint or concern for the wellbeing of their opponents, it's caution in the face of actual danger. As others have said, sometimes this caution takes the form of just blowing up a building if they think it would be too dangerous to send people in, and war in general kills lots and lots and lots of civilians with this kind of collateral damage. You do not want your police force borrowing the army's playbook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:No, the issue is that you're misinterpreting the behavior of the military and making comparisons that are only superficially similar. It's not restraint or concern for the wellbeing of their opponents, it's caution in the face of actual danger. As others have said, sometimes this caution takes the form of just blowing up a building if they think it would be too dangerous to send people in, and war in general kills lots and lots and lots of civilians with this kind of collateral damage. You do not want your police force borrowing the army's playbook. obviously we need it to in some situations because police are doing retarded things that put themselves and citizens in more danger. no-one's saying that the police should start treating citizens like armed combatants, but some procedures used by the military when dealing with armed combatants are clearly superior to current police tactics (such as no-knock raids) when it comes to policing. there is really no reason why police cannot have the swat team shut off power, water, and surround a suspect's home when trying to apprehend a potentially dangerous suspect. Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there is really no reason why police cannot have the swat team shut off power, water, and surround a suspect's home when trying to apprehend a potentially dangerous suspect. Basically this. By the time the reasonable response has escalated to "break down the door and kill anything that moves" the police should already have enough other evidence to convict. If the water is shut off they won't be able to flush much down the toilet. And if 1-2 flushes is enough to get rid of all the evidence then they probably didn't have enough drugs to warrant a no knock breach.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Military: So this militant that we know is armed and wants to make us die ran into that house over there. We have him outnumbered 30:1 and are just going to wait him out. He can't stay in there forever. This is a bad analogy because this isn't some sort of standard military response and depending on the time frame of the war and their area of operations you're just as likely (if not more likely) to see the military either kick in the doors or just kill everyone in the house from the outside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
But it any case it puts the lie to the police's claim that they execute no-knock SWAT raids the way they do because they really believe the house is dangerous and an armed raid is therefore the least risky way to get the suspect out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are. I got the message. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are. Yeah but your message was completely wrong, we didn't use less restraint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I'd also note that your source for the claim that it was SOP to camp a guy's house until he decided to come out on his own is an article you sort of remember from several years ago, which, again, I'd really like to read since it's quite different from other accounts of the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah but your message was completely wrong, we didn't use less restraint. Which fits the scope of the thread to a T concerning cops & makes the message correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Commendable restraint. To be honest camping out a house would make a lot more sense in the context of police work where capturing the suspects alive is a priority and they don't have an indeterminate number of reinforcements potentially in the area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Less restraint than someone who has none sounds like someone who escalates the situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
So we've reached the point where people are telling vets how they're wrong and the US Army was actually really restrained during the war just to avoid having to admit that maybe, just maybe, saying that cops are more trigger-happy then a bunch of infantryman in a war-zone was a bridge too far. Truly we are through the looking glass now edit: Dead Reckoning posted:I'd also note that your source for the claim that it was SOP to camp a guy's house until he decided to come out on his own is an article you sort of remember from several years ago, which, again, I'd really like to read since it's quite different from other accounts of the war. Yeah, like mine, I was just assuming maybe some different poo poo then my experience in Afghanistan happened in Iraq at some points
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:52
|
|