Godholio posted:Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk. The threshold as of now seems to be "I felt like my life was in danger" which apparently means anything from a guy pulling a gun to a guy running away to a guy pulling his pants up. It would be nice if the allowed reaction time was based on something less arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
M_Gargantua posted:While some of the lack of good applicants is poor pay. I'd argue that another huge factor in quality of applicants is that a lot of people view being a cop as bad because of the worst of the bunch shooting people and being racist fucks. Would I, a college educated miliant liberal, want to work in my hometown police department? No. Hell no. Despite being in a democratic town in a liberal state, its rural enough that the whole police force is known to be racist as gently caress and are a miserable lot to deal with even as an affluent white. I think a huge factor is that a lot of applicants think Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, or any generic late 80s/early 90s cop action movies were documentaries.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 20:26
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In a lot of cases, you're talking about hallway distances. It doesn't take Anne Oakley for a person to start dumping bullets in the general direction of "those cops" and let the law of averages be his guide. Action is going to beat reaction every time, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask the police to gamble on aggressors being a bad shot in the name of public interest. yeah and if a few innocent people die as a result who gives a poo poo? that's just how it goes. you wanna make an omelette, you gotta shoot some innocent people, amirite?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 12:54
|
|
Godholio posted:It is in Cole's post that I was questioning. Who is shooting what innocent people? lol i guess i could ask if you're arguing that it's okay for cops to shoot an innocent person every now and then if it means they overall die less, because that's pretty much the idea that my post was making fun of. and i'm pretty sure you know that. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 01:42
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. i don't think it's okay to kill the wrong people on a deployment either hth
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
SimonCat posted:I had an 11B turned police officer tell me that his infantry experience in "peace enforcement" was good training for being a police officer. i was an 11b and i was pretty fuckin crazy with bloodlust when i was in afghanistan and started looking up how much being a police officer pays in various cities around the US. take that for what you will.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And I'm pretty sure cops aren't allowed to shoot anyone they see wearing gang colors as uniformed members of a hostile force, or break into suspects' homes at 3 AM and kidnap them. Shooting people in the back who are running away because they might do something out of a John Woo movie and shoot you with a taser is probably just as lovely as targeting someone because of the colors they are wearing. Also there are no uniformed hostile forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless you want to count the military and police that US forces are training.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 13:16
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:.. in a turret? I'm still baffled. this was literally SOP. warning shots in a direction where nobody could possibly get hit weren't even allowed. if a car was speeding at you in a convoy, you just had to let that motherfucker speed at you and hope pointing your barrel at him worked (it did 99% of the time). pulling the trigger was a no-go unless you were over 100% sure they were trying to kill you, which meant pointing a weapon at you, or you see the bombs in the trunk of their VBIED. look up felipe pereira. he got the DSC after his platoon got blown the gently caress up by a motorcycle IED because they couldn't do poo poo about it even though they were on the radio saying the guy on the bike was suspicious. i wasn't even a quarter of a mile away from that poo poo when it happened, and the explosion was so massive that there's no loving way you wouldn't know that dude was packing explosives. but guess what, you couldn't actually see any explosives because they were covered, so you're just hoping it's not going to explode. SOPs in Afghanistan are way, WAY more strict than they are against cops pulling the trigger on other Americans and if you're cool with that, then gently caress you, you're a piece of poo poo. you can't even shoot a dude in the back if he has a loving AK, but some people in here think it's okay to do so if they have a taser? gently caress off. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 03:08
|
|
I LOVE COCK SALAD posted:Lol I shot so many engines from people getting too close. Your ROE sucked. ROE was to let them pass but not let them get in the middle of the convoy and if they tail too close shoot them in the eye with a green laser. we had a dude get hosed up by the company CO because he put two rounds in the dirt as warning shots when an ANP blew threw one of our checkpoints on a motorcycle. this wasn't too long after two dudes died by motorcycle VBIED in the situation in my last post.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 04:18
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Pretty sure nobody would give a fart if we shot a guy after they disarmed us (wtf cole) or if we lit up an Opel bottoming out and speeding towards us. you don't get to dictate how ROE is/was because it goes against your point. the ROE was the ROE, and it was more strict than the police ROE to pull the trigger on other americans. i'm sorry this goes against your narrative, but that's seriously how it was, dipshit.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Won't anyone think of the people that had to sift through layers upon layers of information telling them bitcoin is not a good idea to be able to get themselves IT-literate enough to buy bitcoin. Yeah they deserve to be homeless. Or die. Whatever it’s hilarious either way.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 20:46
|
|