Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: makattak on December 07, 2019, 01:31:40 PM
-
https://cbs12.com/news/local/ups-driver-killed-in-armed-robbery-chase-and-shootout-identified-as-a-young-father
And they kill the robbers. And their hostage. And an innocent bystander.
Over 200 rounds fired into the truck from up to 19 officers. (Not sure how many fired, but that many responded.)
I am at a loss for how reckless that was.
Oh, and the hostage was on his first day as a UPS driver.
-
Sounds like they went with spray and pray in a hostage situation :facepalm:
-
Yeah, why are they unloading in a hostage situation? Maybe there was a reason, but I'm scratching my head on it. If the bad guys and hostage were all in the UPS truck, it seems like a classic, "grab some donuts and coffee and wait them out" situation.
Did the robbers maybe start shooting every which way and the cops thought it the better part of a bad situation to end that quickly so more bystanders weren't killed?
Oh, also slightly political thread veer but I can't help myself: If highly trained firearm expert cops need 200 rounds to put down a couple of guys, it seems like little old scared me in my home might want a 30 round magazine or ten.
-
https://cbs12.com/news/local/ups-driver-killed-in-armed-robbery-chase-and-shootout-identified-as-a-young-father
And they kill the robbers. And their hostage. And an innocent bystander.
Over 200 rounds fired into the truck from up to 19 officers. (Not sure how many fired, but that many responded.)
I am at a loss for how reckless that was.
According to the article:
According to CBS Miami, 19 officers from five different agencies fired into the UPS truck. The number of shots fired could exceed 200 rounds.
But we need to keep in mind the most important fact: 19 brave police officers all went home at the end of their shift. Everything else is collateral damage.
-
200 rounds would be only 10 rounds each. That isn't all that much. I would say the shot count is either much higher or most of the officers didn't fire.
I thought this was what patrol rifles were for.
-
The UPS truck was stopped by traffic. The cops were using cars as cover/concealment (in other words innocent bystanders as human shields) as they approached and fired into a panel truck -- where they couldn't see who or what they were shooting at, killing the robbers, the hostage, and a bystander.
Supposedly the bad guys started shooting first, so that makes it okay.
-
200 rounds would be only 10 rounds each. That isn't all that much. I would say the shot count is either much higher or most of the officers didn't fire.
I thought this was what patrol rifles were for.
Without trying to unnecessarily knock the cops, with that many around, once the shooting starts, I wonder if there's a semi-involuntary psychological component that kicks in with, "Everyone else is shooting - I'd better get a few rounds off myself."
-
Without trying to unnecessarily knock the cops, with that many around, once the shooting starts, I wonder if there's a semi-involuntary psychological component that kicks in with, "Everyone else is shooting - I'd better get a few rounds off myself."
Yes. It is called sympathetic fire or contagious shooting.
I’ll wait on some more details.
-
I saw this picture posted on twitter. No link was given so I am not sure where it came from.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELPiFu1X0AE9Y5N?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
Tangential pet peeve of mine: EVERYONE in that photo is a civilian.
-
Technically, they didn't label the police officers. =D ....but I know what you mean.
It does illustrate that cops were shooting past occupied cars. They may not have intended to use people as cover, but they did.
Not to mention that is appears most of them did not have a target aside from the truck.
-
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/investigators-want-drivers-videos-of-ups-truck-shooting-in-broward-county
This has a short video from inside a car of officers shooting over the car.
-
I did not notice until just now that it was BROWARD COUNTY.
That explains a lot.
-
It does illustrate that cops were shooting past occupied cars. They may not have intended to use people as cover, but they did.
Yeah, if I were the driver of that red car and saw that photo, I'd be shitting my pants post-incident.
-
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/miramar/fl-ne-police-response-18-cops-ups-driver-20191210-vtikqxukmjgv7fjtndudp3qnqm-story.html
This link has the video from the helicopter.
You can see cops using occupied cars as cover. There could be a backseat full of child safety seats for all they know.
Also, near the end everyone is still pointing guns but approaching from all angles so any fire was be at other police officers.
-
Yeah, if I were the driver of that red car and saw that photo, I'd be shitting my pants post-incident.
A 70 year old was killed in the shootout, and we don't know which car he was in. He may very well have been the driver of that red car.
-
Yeah, if I were the driver of that red car and saw that photo, I'd be shitting my pants post-incident.
I would be curious to match up the bystander killed with where she was on the photo. I am sure lawyers are already looking at that.
(makattak got in ahead of me with the same comment)
-
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/miramar/fl-ne-police-response-18-cops-ups-driver-20191210-vtikqxukmjgv7fjtndudp3qnqm-story.html
This link has the video from the helicopter.
You can see cops using occupied cars as cover. There could be a backseat full of child safety seats for all they know.
Also, near the end everyone is still pointing guns but approaching from all angles so any fire was be at other police officers.
From your link:
He said the officers are “emotionally distraught. Our No. 1 goal is protection of the citizens.”
I actually laughed out loud at that. I'm fairly certain that isn't their number 1 goal or we'd have seen the citizens pulled out of their cars instead of the police using them as human shields.
-
I did not notice until just now that it was BROWARD COUNTY.
That explains a lot.
Same for me. Yes, Broward County does explain a lot. Looks like the new sheriff still has a lot of training to get his deputies caught up on.
-
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate. I still don't have enough info to make a determination about whether the police made the best out of a bad situation or screwed the pooch - other than to note that any situation that produces dead innocent people sucks. The other side of that is that bad guys shooting it out in a crowded space is never going to be safe no matter what the cops do or don't do.
While I'll allow that it is likely that police shot both bad guys, the UPS guy and the bystander, to my knowledge that hasn't been clarified. If the hostage and/or the bystander turn out to have been killed by the robbers would that change any of your views?
The UPS truck was stopped by traffic. The cops were using cars as cover/concealment (in other words innocent bystanders as human shields) as they approached and fired into a panel truck -- where they couldn't see who or what they were shooting at, killing the robbers, the hostage, and a bystander.
;/
The cops were using available cover and concealment. Video was posted of some uninvolved motorists doing the exact same thing - crouching behind occupied cars and trying not to get shot. No, they weren't using innocent bystanders as human shields. The bad guys were, for sure, but no one else that I saw.
Supposedly the bad guys started shooting first, so that makes it okay.
If that turns out to be the truth, how exactly do you want police to handle an active shooter scenario featuring (as you noted) lots of innocent people all around the UPS truck? What's the best tactical solution in your book? Turn around and leave? Maybe pull a Scot Peterson and hang out where it is safe until the bad guys run out of ammo or decide they're done? Make sure that you stand up tall in the hope that any incoming round hits you square and maybe doesn't hurt as many people behind you?
You can see cops using occupied cars as cover. There could be a backseat full of child safety seats for all they know.
Assuming as before that the bad guys started blasting first then I don't care. The backseat full of kids in car seats is not safer by giving free reign to the armed robbers who have shown a willingness to carjack and take hostages, and who have decided to level up to active shooters on crowded street. Nor is there any conceivable way the police could have approached the vehicle with zero risk. That is to say, if cops crouch behind a car, any occupant of the vehicle could be injured by incoming gunfire. If they stand in the open then innocent people behind them could be injured by incoming gunfire. If they shoot at the vehicle they might miss and hit someone. If they fail to engage the bad guys, the bad guys might keep trying to kill people.
I actually laughed out loud at that. I'm fairly certain that isn't their number 1 goal or we'd have seen the citizens pulled out of their cars instead of the police using them as human shields.
Again with the ;/
When the bad guys are shooting on a crowded street (or a crowded school, or wherever bad guys are shooting at innocent people), the best thing to do in my opinion is to stop the shooting ASAP. That's why we criticized Scot for failing to even attempt to engage the Parkland shooter. It's easy to armchair quarterback the call to shoot the bad guys given the risks and the outcome, or to use cover and concealment to move to where they could get a better shot. Then again, who is to say that had more of the police focused on evacuating the vehicles instead of applying tactical pressure that the outcome would have been any better? People hidden in their vehicles might catch a round, but so might people running away, especially if the bad guys are then able to take more time to aim. For that matter, pulling someone out of a car or leading them away could draw fire every bit as much or more.
Yes, I'm aware that what-ifs could easily go the other way too. Maybe had mak or bob been in control of the situation and applied their brilliant, retrospective tactical prowess no one would have gotten hurt at all.
-
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate. I still don't have enough info to make a determination about whether the police made the best out of a bad situation or screwed the pooch - other than to note that any situation that produces dead innocent people sucks. The other side of that is that bad guys shooting it out in a crowded space is never going to be safe no matter what the cops do or don't do.
...
<bunch of what-if stuff>
...
Yes, I'm aware that what-ifs could easily go the other way too. Maybe had mak or bob been in control of the situation and applied their brilliant, retrospective tactical prowess no one would have gotten hurt at all.
Ok, let's go to the video tape from the helicopter.
I paused immediately following the shootout. I counted 30+ police officers with guns drawn, advancing on the UPS truck.
How many officers did I count checking on the citizens in the surrounding cars? Zero.
During the shootout, there were over 15 officers actually shooting. Others (of those 30+) were moving into position to shoot, as well.
Guess how many I saw trying to get the citizens in the cars out of harms way? Also zero. EVERY police officer was trying to get into position to shoot or shooting.
IF their number 1 goal was protecting citizens, at least some of them would have realized that firearm #27 focused on the exact same location is PROBABLY not helpful and I should give some attention to the surrounding area.
After determining the threat was ceased, guess how many sprinted over (or even ambled over) to the surrounding vehicles? No no, guess.
The police were focused on the shooters and themselves.
That's understandable, but that's not what their superior said. Even if two innocents hadn't been killed in the crossfire, this is not an example the police should have been proud of.
And YES, I do expect more from people who are paid to confront danger than any random person confronted by danger.
-
I saw this picture posted on twitter. No link was given so I am not sure where it came from.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELPiFu1X0AE9Y5N?format=jpg&name=medium)
Looking in the upper left part of the photo: do I see cops taking cover BEHIND the car full of kids?
-
"Acceptable" collateral damage is what you get with a military mindset.
It was a no win situation for the cops unfortunately.
-
cordex, I am not saying the cops are bad guys in all this, I just think their tactics could be better and it should be a big training opportunity. My thoughts are all in hindsight. The big question is was keeping their distance and waiting an option at all? Or did the bad guys start shooting before they were closing in? I thought they usually kept their distance in hostage situations but I don't know if those officers knew there was a hostage.
I think using occupied cars for cover and shooting from those positions draws fire toward bystanders. I would have liked to see some officers working on pulling people out and getting them clear. It is a busy street so it was a sucky situation from the start. I realize these are not organized police platoon. They are a bunch of singles and pairs coming together to catch these guys. I am not sure who should be organizing things in a situation like that.
I also question whether that many officers should be firing since most of them can't see the occupants of the UPS truck. How do you train for that when these situations are so rare?
The only solution I could think of for cover is those bullet proof (resistant) riot shields I have seen. That would allow them to approach with some protection and stay clear of cars. Not a perfect solution.
I would like to see more patrol rifles in this case to provide more accurate fire though that means they can't carry a riot shield. I did notice one or two. Maybe they could work in pairs. At the distance many of the officers were firing, most pistol shooters are not so accurate.
At this point, it is already done so the best thing to do is learn from it.
-
While I'll allow that it is likely that police shot both bad guys, the UPS guy and the bystander, to my knowledge that hasn't been clarified. If the hostage and/or the bystander turn out to have been killed by the robbers would that change any of your views?
No. What about the possibility of breaking off the hot pursuit and just following the UPS truck with a helicopter? Keep it in view and follow at a distance until the vehicle can be isolated away from masses of civilians, or until the bad guys exit the vehicle.
The cops were using available cover and concealment. Video was posted of some uninvolved motorists doing the exact same thing - crouching behind occupied cars and trying not to get shot. No, they weren't using innocent bystanders as human shields. The bad guys were, for sure, but no one else that I saw.
If the vehicles the cops were hiding behind had innocent people inside them, then the cops very much were using innocent bystanders as human shields. If the cops weren't hiding behind those vehicles, the bad guys would have no reason to be shooting at those vehicles. Full stop. By using those vehicles as "cover," the cops were directly endangering the occupants.
-
If that turns out to be the truth, how exactly do you want police to handle an active shooter scenario featuring (as you noted) lots of innocent people all around the UPS truck? What's the best tactical solution in your book? Turn around and leave? Maybe pull a Scot Peterson and hang out where it is safe until the bad guys run out of ammo or decide they're done? Make sure that you stand up tall in the hope that any incoming round hits you square and maybe doesn't hurt as many people behind you?
How about follow at a distance instead of forcing a confrontation in a crowded area that they had no control over? A helicopter couldn't track a UPS truck? The police showed no regard for the hostage, and very little if any for the public.
-
How about follow at a distance instead of forcing a confrontation in a crowded area that they had no control over? A helicopter couldn't track a UPS truck? The police showed no regard for the hostage, and very little if any for the public.
Also, I would make a solid bet that the UPS truck had GPS on it enabling it to be tracked.
-
Tangential pet peeve of mine: EVERYONE in that photo is a civilian.
QFTMFT.
-
I wouldn't use the term human shield, but hiding behind an uninvolved person does increase their risk of incoming fire. That said, I can't imagine a way to quickly get those same parties to safety when looking at the picture. Maybe advancing on the bad guys shooting at them was the quickest way to minimize the danger? Just a no win situation.
-
I paused immediately following the shootout. I counted 30+ police officers with guns drawn, advancing on the UPS truck.
How many officers did I count checking on the citizens in the surrounding cars? Zero.
During the shootout, there were over 15 officers actually shooting. Others (of those 30+) were moving into position to shoot, as well.
Guess how many I saw trying to get the citizens in the cars out of harms way? Also zero. EVERY police officer was trying to get into position to shoot or shooting.
IF their number 1 goal was protecting citizens, at least some of them would have realized that firearm #27 focused on the exact same location is PROBABLY not helpful and I should give some attention to the surrounding area.
I'm not saying they couldn't have done anything better, however I don't expect them to handle a black swan event such as this like they were CAG guys or SEALs. I think it is theoretically possible (although I am still withholding judgement) that they did as well as they could under the conditions and knowledge they were operating under.
I watched chopper video too but the one I saw didn't show many non-cop cars in frame by the time they had cleared the truck. I'll agree that perhaps you would have done better if you'd been in command or on the scene.
No.
I know.
What about the possibility of breaking off the hot pursuit and just following the UPS truck with a helicopter? Keep it in view and follow at a distance until the vehicle can be isolated away from masses of civilians, or until the bad guys exit the vehicle.
Yeah, maybe that would have worked. Or maybe the UPS guy would have ended up dead, maybe a family gets carjacked and killed, and then you get to complain about how their inaction led to more dead people just like it did in Parkland and it is proof they are cowards and don't care about people.
If the vehicles the cops were hiding behind had innocent people inside them, then the cops very much were using innocent bystanders as human shields. If the cops weren't hiding behind those vehicles, the bad guys would have no reason to be shooting at those vehicles. Full stop. By using those vehicles as "cover," the cops were directly endangering the occupants.
1. No. That's not using a human shield. Words mean things, and despite knowing better you're lying abut it because you want to be angry at cops.
2. Yes, police engaging from there might draw fire. Or, police firing at the bad guy might suppress them and reduce their ability to fire in that direction.
3. Police being anywhere on a crowded street could draw fire toward an innocent person. I imagine that there were innocent people literally everywhere around that truck so the police being anywhere increases someone's risk. I don't believe (and I doubt anyone yelling about human shields really believes) that any of the cops were intentionally using innocent people as ablative meat shields. Yes, they probably did increase the risk that a given innocent person might have been hit because they were crouching behind their engine block. If the cops had the time to work out all the lines of sight and possible scenarios I doubt they would have planned the event exactly that way.
cordex, I am not saying the cops are bad guys in all this, I just think their tactics could be better and it should be a big training opportunity. My thoughts are all in hindsight. The big question is was keeping their distance and waiting an option at all? Or did the bad guys start shooting before they were closing in? I thought they usually kept their distance in hostage situations but I don't know if those officers knew there was a hostage.
And I'm not saying they did everything perfectly. Yes, I'm sure there were things they could have done better. Maybe waiting would have been a better option. Or maybe not.
I think using occupied cars for cover and shooting from those positions draws fire toward bystanders.
Yes but. See above response.
I would have liked to see some officers working on pulling people out and getting them clear. It is a busy street so it was a sucky situation from the start.
It might have been a good idea, but I can't imagine trying to coordinate that on the fly in the moments before shots started, much less during the gunbattle. It definitely was a sucky situation from the start.
I realize these are not organized police platoon. They are a bunch of singles and pairs coming together to catch these guys. I am not sure who should be organizing things in a situation like that.
I also question whether that many officers should be firing since most of them can't see the occupants of the UPS truck. How do you train for that when these situations are so rare?
It's likely that some of the cops shouldn't have been shooting and were simply firing because everyone else was firing. If this was a kind of things cops faced regularly maybe they would come up with some sound tactical doctrine. Maybe they would be able to somehow identify who had the best angle for lethal cover at any given moment and somehow communicate that those people prepare to shoot while others work to extract innocents. Of course, uniforms could still draw fire and maybe cops pulling people out of vehicles would endanger them as well.
The only solution I could think of for cover is those bullet proof (resistant) riot shields I have seen. That would allow them to approach with some protection and stay clear of cars. Not a perfect solution.
Given time to set up, maybe that would help, although having played with a pistol-rated riot shield during SWAT training I can definitely agree they aren't a perfect solution. Can't imagine the rifle-rated shields ... or having a pistol shield when you needed a rifle shield. As you pointed out, a lot of these guys didn't even have time to get their rifles out. Not sure that they would have had time to get out shields too in this particular case.
How about follow at a distance instead of forcing a confrontation in a crowded area that they had no control over? A helicopter couldn't track a UPS truck? The police showed no regard for the hostage, and very little if any for the public.
Following at a distance might have been a good solution. Or, as I said before, it could have turned out badly, and they'd be blamed for that too.
-
cordex, I don't know that I even disagree with anything you say, but bystanders got killed. A hostage got killed. So a training opportunity is in order. Will the same officers do it differently next time? I don't know. Even a trained team may not have been able to pull off that confrontation without danger to bystanders.
The only real solution I can think of is to keep their distance and maybe a couple guys with rifles take the shot if they leave the truck to try to find another vehicle. Even that has the chance for bad things to happen.
Maybe we will get some more information on this to understand it better.
-
I would also add that given the rounds fired and seeing how cops were coming in from every direction, this could have been a bit worse.
-
Too soon for humor?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELXkV0sXkAAd0T5?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
1. No. That's not using a human shield. Words mean things, and despite knowing better you're lying abut it because you want to be angry at cops.
I'm lying because I don't accept your analysis that the cops didn't really do anything wrong?
Yes, words mean things. When someone places something between himself and a shooter, he is using that something as a shield. If that something happens to contain human beings, then that person is using those humans as shields. Perhaps not directly, but the result is the same -- the bad guys' bullets have to go through the innocents in the vehicle to get to the cop hiding behind the vehicle.
I want to be angry at cops? You could not possibly be more wrong. Over the course of my lifetime I have had a number of friends who were police officers. Given my age and their ages, at this point I don't know any currently active police officers I would consider friends, but I do know a number of retired officers I consider friends. I don't want to be angry at cops, or at anybody else. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to call a stupid action stupid.
-
I'm lying because I don't accept your analysis that the cops didn't really do anything wrong?
Yes, words mean things. When someone places something between himself and a shooter, he is using that something as a shield. If that something happens to contain human beings, then that person is using those humans as shields. Perhaps not directly, but the result is the same -- the bad guys' bullets have to go through the innocents in the vehicle to get to the cop hiding behind the vehicle.
You are lying because “human shields” does not mean what you keep implying it means and you are plenty smart enough to know better. If a newspaper published a similarly inaccurate headline (that didn’t confirm your biases) it is a good bet we would see a thread complaining about it here.
-
Too soon for humor?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELXkV0sXkAAd0T5?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191211/5d150309e9d90a945ec9622bc00f6319.jpg)
-
You are lying because “human shields” does not mean what you keep implying it means and you are plenty smart enough to know better. If a newspaper published a similarly inaccurate headline (that didn’t confirm your biases) it is a good bet we would see a thread complaining about it here.
Apparently you do not understand what the verb "lie" means.
-
You are lying because “human shields” does not mean what you keep implying it means and you are plenty smart enough to know better. If a newspaper published a similarly inaccurate headline (that didn’t confirm your biases) it is a good bet we would see a thread complaining about it here.
The robbers weren't firing on random cars. The cars (with real, actual people inside them) did not take fire until the police used them for cover.
The police actions put more people in danger.
And, as I noted, they simply were focused on protecting themselves and getting the hijackers. They simply didn't take into consideration members of the public. That is my problem with this.
Any random person likely would not have done better. I expect better from the people (supposedly) trained to confront threats to the public.
-
"human shields" is a loaded term that implies it was done deliberately with forethought. I think makattak stated it best. The officers were focused on the bad guys and seemed to give little thought to the cars other than cover as they advanced on the truck. Though you could make the case that advancing on the bad guys and taking them out quickly put fewer people in danger in the long run. It is hard to judge based on one video clip.
-
[cough] concealment[/cough]
The police officers were using the cars as concealment. Were the cars cover, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.
Which brings up a question, since we've decided cops have to go paramilitary on occasion: Who's got those smoke grenades that they always use at demonstrations. Not CS, but smoke. Because THAT'S how you actually do that evolution of advancing on foot against a defensive position that has concealment from you and is surrounded by non-combatants. You pop smoke, and advance under your own concealment until you have PID, then cap the *expletive deleted*ers.
Look, I've said before that the cops in America are getting to militaristic, but if we must have militaristic cops, can we at least get some decent battle drills going? These guys act like the Afghan National Army when they take fire. It's embarrassing.
-
Apparently you do not understand what the verb "lie" means.
You are intentionally attempting to convey something you know to be false. Do you have a better word for that you'd rather I use?
The robbers weren't firing on random cars. The cars (with real, actual people inside them) did not take fire until the police used them for cover.
The police actions put more people in danger.
And, as I noted, they simply were focused on protecting themselves and getting the hijackers. They simply didn't take into consideration members of the public. That is my problem with this.
Any random person likely would not have done better. I expect better from the people (supposedly) trained to confront threats to the public.
If their priority was protecting themselves then they would not have advanced on the truck. In doing so they put themselves at risk.
I would say that the armed robbers who took a hostage and (allegedly) started a gunbattle in the middle of a crowded street put people in danger, not the police.
Police actions regularly - and not necessarily wrongly - put uninvolved people in danger. High speed chases put innocent people in danger, for instance. The alternative - i.e. letting people go the minute they start to drive fast - also has potential dangers associated with it.
No, any random person would not have likely done better. Nor any random gun owner. Nor even any random member of this forum. Keeping your head and making wise strategic choices on a two-way range with a thrown-together unit with limited comms and command structure is not as easy as you seem to think. My personal experience is limited to situations that I knew I'd live through but I know I've made tactical mistakes and went tunnel vision in those kinds of scenarios. Heck, a random person at the jewelry store failed to solve the problem before the cops ever got there. It's likely there was at least one non-cop good guy with a gun near the shootout who didn't solve the problem.
Finally, this is not a scenario you can realistically expect anyone to prepare for 100%.
"human shields" is a loaded term that implies it was done deliberately with forethought.
As used in common parlance, human shields typically indicates intentionally placing innocent people around a likely target to foil an attack because of the knowledge that the attacking force would have qualms about hurting them. If the cops had advanced behind the robbers' loved ones then that would be using human shields.
I think makattak stated it best. The officers were focused on the bad guys and seemed to give little thought to the cars other than cover as they advanced on the truck. Though you could make the case that advancing on the bad guys and taking them out quickly put fewer people in danger in the long run. It is hard to judge based on one video clip.
Agreed.
-
They had a helicopter, and officers from several different agencies, and the van almost certainly had GPS tracking- but they had to do the shooting in a MFing traffic jam???
This is pure incompetence, if not criminal negligence.
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/e35/s1080x1080/75252725_2107781209324911_5075821697376083440_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=103&oh=6c61d574bd561f6e8cc5053688bc0f57&oe=5E83F032)
-
Are you sure that's the message you want to send?
-
Are you sure that's the message you want to send?
Is it going to offend the 'good cops?' If so, why aren't the good cops doing something about all of the F-ups in their departments?
-
As for being an innocent bystander in a sketchy situation I have 3 rules: Sometimes fight. Sometimes run. Sometimes do nothing. :old:
-
You are intentionally attempting to convey something you know to be false. Do you have a better word for that you'd rather I use?
No, you claim what I'm trying to convey is false. I don't know it's false. As far as I'm concerned, it's true. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make me a liar. (Nor does it make your version true.)
-
As for being an innocent bystander in a sketchy situation I have 3 rules: Sometimes fight. Sometimes run. Sometimes do nothing. :old:
You forgot number 4: Sometimes die.
-
They had a helicopter, and officers from several different agencies, and the van almost certainly had GPS tracking- but they had to do the shooting in a MFing traffic jam???
Maybe following from a distance would have been a better choice. Or maybe it would have made the situation worse. I don't know, and neither do you.
At the moment the report is that the bad guys started the shooting. If accurate then the police were neither responsible for the traffic jam, nor the gun battle. I do think it is funny how armed robbers taking a hostage and shooting it out with the cops becomes the cops fault.
This is pure incompetence, if not criminal negligence.
You base this analysis on what? That in your imagination the scenario could have possibly played out better if they'd done something different? That the good little robbers, attempted murderers, and hostage takers who were just trying to turn their life around would have just given up or casually driven out to a place that was safe to engage them if the cops had let them do whatever they wanted? Again, maybe the cops could have done something better, but trying to lay this instance at their feet given what we know is pretty stupid.
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/e35/s1080x1080/75252725_2107781209324911_5075821697376083440_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=103&oh=6c61d574bd561f6e8cc5053688bc0f57&oe=5E83F032)
Pure class brimic. So do you in fact advocate killing police officers who are trying to stop an active shooter because the cops happen to be shooting from a position near you?
No, you claim what I'm trying to convey is false. I don't know it's false. As far as I'm concerned, it's true. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make me a liar. (Nor does it make your version true.)
You're claiming ignorance instead of malice? Were you not trying to imply a deliberate placing of innocent people in the line of fire by the responding police? If you and others had simply said that police increased the risk to the people whose cars they were shooting around then I'd have to agree, although I'd balance that by saying ending the threat quickly is probably more important to reduce risk. However you decided that you wanted to use an emotionally charged term which implies deliberate use of innocent people to foil attack by people with qualms against harming those innocent people. In other words, you were trying to - without any subtlety - cast the police as akin to terrorists and somehow put the armed robbers who had already tried to kill someone that day as good guys with qualms about harming innocent people.
And no, you are not even technically correct as the police were using vehicles - not the occupants - as concealment. In the end it certainly could have drawn fire toward those occupants, but even standing out away from any car could draw fire toward innocent people behind the officers.
This situation sucked from the word go, but it was a situation of the robber's making, not the police.
-
Pure class brimic. So do you in fact advocate killing police officers who are trying to stop an active shooter because the cops happen to be shooting from a position near you?
If my family is in the car and they are firing through my car, then yes. Police lives are not more important than mine or my family's. Suck it up buttercup.
-
If my family is in the car and they are firing through my car, then yes. Police lives are not more important than mine or my family's. Suck it up buttercup.
That is not what the picture you posted communicates.