The Briefing Room

General Category => Editorial/Opinion => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 04, 2013, 11:40:26 AM

Title: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: mystery-ak on October 04, 2013, 11:40:26 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/04/Did-They-Have-to-Shoot (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/04/Did-They-Have-to-Shoot)

Did They Have to Shoot?
by Joel B. Pollak 4 Oct 2013, 5:35 AM PDT

Becoming a parent really does change your perspective on things. And there's no way for me to look at that picture of police taking Miriam Carey's 18-month-old daughter--the same age, roughly, as my own daughter--out of her bullet-riddled Infiniti without wondering if it was really necessary to shoot an unarmed mother.

Others are asking the same question. Obviously, police would have careful after the Navy Yard shooting. And it's not clear that they did anything wrong. Still, it's not clear that Miriam Carey needed to die to end the situation. I'm not trying to make this about race, or police brutality--just asking a question that troubles me.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: sinkspur on October 04, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/04/Did-They-Have-to-Shoot[/url] ([url]http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/04/Did-They-Have-to-Shoot[/url])

Did They Have to Shoot?
by Joel B. Pollak 4 Oct 2013, 5:35 AM PDT

Becoming a parent really does change your perspective on things. And there's no way for me to look at that picture of police taking Miriam Carey's 18-month-old daughter--the same age, roughly, as my own daughter--out of her bullet-riddled Infiniti without wondering if it was really necessary to shoot an unarmed mother.

Others are asking the same question. Obviously, police would have careful after the Navy Yard shooting. And it's not clear that they did anything wrong. Still, it's not clear that Miriam Carey needed to die to end the situation. I'm not trying to make this about race, or police brutality--just asking a question that troubles me.


Crazy people do crazy things.  The problem with something like this in Washington DC is that the first thought is of terrorism.  And terror threats, even suspected terror threats, have to be neutralized as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Honestly, after watching the videos, I would have taken the same actions as the police. They didn't have a time machine or mind reading device. what they had was an active threat in front of them and a fast decision to make before she became more of a threat to the public or other officers. All of this talk about how they 'should have shot the tires out' is Hollywood, not real life. They had no clue if she was armed or if her car was a bomb. She was given the opportunity when they blocked her in to get out of the car and stop, but she didn't. Instead she rammed them, tried to run them over, and kept going. How would that be different than, for example, a suicide bomber trying to get through?

But what if they did 'shoot her tires out' and it actually worked (which it doesn't work the way people think). They knew there was a child in the car and that could have resulted in a hostage situation with the child, with far worse results.

Considering reports have about a dozen shots being fired yet the child was unharmed shows a carefulness on the police's part.

I'm giving the police the benefit of the doubt in this sad situation.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:18:22 PM
Crazy people do crazy things.  The problem with something like this in Washington DC is that the first thought is of terrorism.  And terror threats, even suspected terror threats, have to be neutralized as quickly as possible.

If she were a suicide bomber attempting to get a vehicle close to the Capitol, how would she have acted differently? Her actions were a immediate threat.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:19:10 PM
Considering reports have about a dozen shots being fired yet the child was unharmed shows a carefulness on the police's part.

No.

We used to have a legal-system that was required to sentence people to death.

Now, you can be justifiably executed based on the mindset of the police officer(s) alone.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that...

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: famousdayandyear on October 04, 2013, 12:22:43 PM
Well-trained LE (especially deployed in DC) understand the number one threat is the White House.  Could it be an armed terrorist?  Unlikely.  The top threat would be the *car* used as a weapon.  Suicide bomber with child on board as cover?  LE does not second guess when multiple civilian lives may be at stake.  Tragic--but the way the real world operates today. 

A dazed, lost, confused individual does not drive in DC in the manner I saw on existing video. 
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: sinkspur on October 04, 2013, 12:23:22 PM
No.

We used to have a legal-system that was required to sentence people to death.

Now, you can be justifiably executed based on the mindset of the police officer(s) alone.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that...

She had already hit a Secret Service agent with her car.  A car used as a weapon.

There were times during the chase the Infiniti reached 80 mph.  A car traveling that speed is a deadly weapon.

She had opportunities to end the situation she created. 
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
No.

We used to have a legal-system that was required to sentence people to death.

Now, you can be justifiably executed based on the mindset of the police officer(s) alone.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that...

She sentenced herself by using her vehicle as a weapon. There is little difference in this situation and someone holding a gun firing on the public. The police have an obligation not only to their own self defense (as does every citizen in this country) but also the defense of those they are tasked to protect. In this case, her weapon happened to be a two thousand pound vehicle.

The right of self defense and to defend others doesn't stop with private citizens.

At that, if a private citizen had stopped someone using their car as a weapon in the same way, we would be cheering and using it as evidence of why the 2nd Amendment is important, not complaining they were acting as someone enacting a death sentence (which is usually the argument of the left when a private citizen shoots a perp, such as in the Zimmerman trial.)
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:27:47 PM
No.

We used to have a legal-system that was required to sentence people to death.



..at that.. this is almost a word for word argument the left used against Zimmerman when defending himself from Trayvon 'grounding and pounding him'. http://www.blackballot.com/index.php/featured-writers/sid-davis/436-george-zimmerman-neighborhood-judge-jury-and-executioner
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
She sentenced herself by using her vehicle as a weapon. There is little difference in this situation and someone holding a gun firing on the public. The police have an obligation not only to their own self defense (as does every citizen in this country) but also the defense of those they are tasked to protect. In this case, her weapon happened to be a two thousand pound vehicle.

That's simply a rationalization.

The police have no obligation to defend or protect anyone.  Several Supreme Court decisions have clarified that.

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:31:07 PM
That's simply a rationalization.

The police have no obligation to defend or protect anyone.  Several Supreme Court decisions have clarified that.

Every individual has a right to defend themselves.

...and you can't have a rationalization with out being rational.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: sinkspur on October 04, 2013, 12:32:00 PM
That's simply a rationalization.

The police have no obligation to defend or protect anyone.  Several Supreme Court decisions have clarified that.

What does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:32:52 PM
..at that.. this is almost a word for word argument the left used against Zimmerman when defending himself from Trayvon 'grounding and pounding him'.

The difference is that GZ/TM was between two private citizens.  It was tried and determined to be self-defense.

This is state police-power being directed at citizens.  The admin has already declared it has the right to execute citizens without a trial via drone attack.  This is the same thing.

You are way down the slippery-slope...


Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: famousdayandyear on October 04, 2013, 12:34:03 PM
That's simply a rationalization.

The police have no obligation to defend or protect anyone.  Several Supreme Court decisions have clarified that.



Is this thread a joke?  Ask Barack Obama why he needs a Secret Service detail.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Every individual has a right to defend themselves.

...and you can't have a rationalization with out being rational.

Except this woman didn't get that right.  The SS agent fired on her first 'and then the chase was on' according to the article I posted yesterday.

And a rationalization is not the same as being rational.  Look it up.



Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:37:23 PM
Except this woman didn't get that right.  The SS agent fired on her first 'and then the chase was on' according to the article I posted yesterday.

And a rationalization is not the same as being rational.  Look it up.

She is the one taking aggressive action, ramming them with her car and being a threat to the general public. She was basically Trayvon on wheels. (not a racial comment but a comment on her choice of actions).
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:39:58 PM
Is this thread a joke?  Ask Barack Obama why he needs a Secret Service detail.


Warren v. District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

"Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals."

Obama was in no danger unless he was standing in the middle of the street...


Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:40:51 PM
She is the one taking aggressive action, ramming them with her car and being a threat to the general public. She was basically Trayvon on wheels. (not a racial comment but a comment on her choice of actions).

As I posted yesterday, the headlights on her car weren't even broken.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid...


Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: DCPatriot on October 04, 2013, 12:45:06 PM
Like it or not, this shows how tense and uptight the DC law enforcements  are....so close on the heels of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard Shooter.

The typical terrorist or individual jihadist would give pause...if they'll shoot an attractive black woman in a $40K sport coupe...WITH HER BABY IN THE SEAT!!
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
As I posted yesterday, the headlights on her car weren't even broken.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid...

The front bumper was dented, the side of the car was dented, and the rear was smashed up pretty badly. The video shows her ramming the police in reverse and driving at a high rate of speed around the public (80mph +). You choose to judge her aggressiveness based on if her headlights were intact?

But I have to ask, what would you have done differently?
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:50:57 PM
The typical terrorist or individual jihadist would give pause...if they'll shoot an attractive black woman in a $40K sport coupe...WITH HER BABY IN THE SEAT!!

Remember the 'training' posters that came out a few years ago of old people, pregnant women and children?

Police have been trained that everybody's a terrorist and non-compliance is to be met with deadly force.

What we saw is simply the result of that training...



Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 12:55:58 PM
The front bumper was dented, the side of the car was dented, and the rear was smashed up pretty badly. The video shows her ramming the police in reverse and driving at a high rate of speed around the public (80mph +). You choose to judge her aggressiveness based on if her headlights were intact?

If she was 'ramming' people, I would expect the headlights to be broken, yes.  She was trying to get away because the SS agent shot at her.  The 'chase' started after that.

Quote
But I have to ask, what would you have done differently?

She was stopped when she was executed, wasn't she?



Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: DCPatriot on October 04, 2013, 12:58:01 PM
Remember the 'training' posters that came out a few years ago of old people, pregnant women and children?

Police have been trained that everybody's a terrorist and non-compliance is to be met with deadly force.

What we saw is simply the result of that training...

I noticed that one of the five (5) men that had surrounded her with guns drawn was wearing white Bermuda shorts and had been carrying a lunch bucket according to witnesses' statements.

IOW....there's a clot of clandestine undercover law enforcement in the District of Columbia.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: aligncare on October 04, 2013, 12:59:29 PM
 :pondering: At the very least the question is justified and deserving of some discussion.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 01:01:50 PM
If she was 'ramming' people, I would expect the headlights to be broken, yes.  She was trying to get away because the SS agent shot at her.  The 'chase' started after that.

She was stopped when she was executed, wasn't she?


Here is the video, they didn't shoot until after she rammed them and was accelerating towards them trying to get away. They had her surrounded and were trying to open her doors to get her out. She then backed up, ramming them and almost hitting several officers. (seconds 1-30).  That is when they upholstered their guns and shot (Second 25-27).  Most guns were even holstered or in safe position up until she threw her car in reverse and rammed them.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1380838413

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 01:10:46 PM
Here is the video, they didn't shoot until after she rammed them and was accelerating towards them trying to get away. They had her surrounded and were trying to open her doors to get her out. She then backed up, ramming them and almost hitting several officers. (seconds 1-30).  That is when they upholstered their guns and shot (Second 25-27).  Most guns were even holstered or in safe position up until she threw her car in reverse and rammed them.

You do realize that police will put themselves into a position where they are 'threatened' if your vehicle moves and thereby justifying the use of deadly force, right?

Between the 4-5 cars behind and the poles in front, they had plenty of inanimate resources to box her in.  They were more interested in pulling their weapons than in preventing the car from moving again.

She had already been shot at once.  She's obviously trying to get away from guys w/ guns. 

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 01:17:45 PM
They did have her boxed in, just apparently not good enough to stop her but good enough that she had to damage her car to get away.


But that doesn't matter. This isn't a football game where she is a running back and if she can find an opening to get through, she wins.
This is real life and when you are surrounded by law enforcement demanding you get out of your car, you make a choice, get out of your car, hold your hands up and speak with them to understand the situation, or try to get away, ramming them, and becoming a life or death threat to them or everyone around her. She chose the latter.

She sentenced herself to death the moment she threw her car in reverse instead of putting her hands up.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 01:25:34 PM
They did have her boxed in, just apparently not good enough to stop her but good enough that she had to damage her car to get away.

They did not have her boxed in.  Boxed in means you can't escape.  With 4-5 cars and what was effectively a wall in front, there should have been no way for her to escape in her car.  Period. 


Quote
But that doesn't matter. This isn't a football game where she is a running back and if she can find an opening to get through, she wins.

Of course not.  Execute her instead.

Quote
This is real life and when you are surrounded by law enforcement demanding you get out of your car, you make a choice, get out of your car, hold your hands up and speak with them to understand the situation, or try to get away, ramming them, and becoming a life or death threat to them or everyone around her. She chose the latter.

She had already been shot at once.  She obviously concluded (and rightly so) that the police were more interested in executing her than in stopping her.  They had plenty of resources to stop her but executed her instead.

Quote
She sentenced herself to death the moment she threw her car in reverse instead of putting her hands up.

She didn't sentence herself or anyone else to death.  The police did that.


Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: truth_seeker on October 04, 2013, 01:40:50 PM
When somebody doesn't respond to LE, and they act in a manner that is a threat to others, they are correct at trying to stop the threat.

She had professional help, so she wasn't ignorant of the situation. Maybe she went off her meds. Maybe her meds needed adjusting.

I knew two men with depression (possibly other conditions, too).  Both were alcoholics, with long term sobriety, but went back to drinking.

Both committed suicide. One quietly, the other in a big showdown. The big showdown guy wore red-white-blue, professed to be a big patriot, held his family hostage inside their townhome, released them, and then stepped outside the apartment.

The officers told him to put his rifle down, but he raised it to point at them. They shot him. He died. He was my friend. I knew him from meetings, then saw a picture of him posted on FR from a patriot type rally in our area.

Very, very sad. He used to bring his daughters to AA meetings, so people got to know him and them.

The question comes: Should the police be shooting rubber bullets at people with real guns, or 3,500 lb. vehicles bearing down on them? 




Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 01:49:15 PM
When somebody doesn't respond to LE, and they act in a manner that is a threat to others, they are correct at trying to stop the threat.

She had professional help, so she wasn't ignorant of the situation. Maybe she went off her meds. Maybe her meds needed adjusting.

The SS agent had shot at her before she was a threat to anyone.  The police had ample opportunity and resources to box her car in.  They didn't.  They did point guns at a woman who had already been shot at and placed themselves in a position to claim they were 'threatened', thereby justifying the use of deadly force.

This is just a rationalization for executing an unarmed woman.

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: truth_seeker on October 04, 2013, 02:25:18 PM
The SS agent had shot at her before she was a threat to anyone.  The police had ample opportunity and resources to box her car in.  They didn't.  They did point guns at a woman who had already been shot at and placed themselves in a position to claim they were 'threatened', thereby justifying the use of deadly force.

This is just a rationalization for executing an unarmed woman.
She is not unarmed. The 3,500 vehicle is a weapon, and when she shows her willingness to use it to do harm, she has placed herself in the sights of those LE able to shut down her threat to others.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: GourmetDan on October 04, 2013, 02:28:50 PM
She is not unarmed. The 3,500 vehicle is a weapon, and when she shows her willingness to use it to do harm, she has placed herself in the sights of those LE able to shut down her threat to others.

Again, that's a rationalization used to execute an unarmed woman.

The police also possessed these 3,500 lb 'weapons', yet 4-5 of them were unable to keep her from driving off even when she was facing a barrier of anti-vehicle poles in her car.

They were more interested in pulling their guns and putting themselves into 'harms way' so that they could justify executing an unarmed woman.

Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: AbaraXas on October 04, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
:pondering: At the very least the question is justified and deserving of some discussion.

A good thing about this site is this is the type of discussion we are having. Even though many of us are on completely opposite sides, it is an adult discussion on a serious aspect of the situation.

I made the mistake of visiting a few other sites and over 70% of the comments were about her being 'Holder's people' or screaming it was a 'false flag'.

I think this site is a good example of dissenting discourse our side can have without going into thorazine land.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: DCPatriot on October 04, 2013, 04:00:27 PM
The use of the word "execute" however, does not fit and its continued usage gives the impression that you know it is.

They didn't walk up to her and shoot her dead.  They yelled commands to cease and desist and to NOT MOVE! 

Did they kill her?  Yes.  Murder perhaps?  Yes.  "Execute"?  No.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 04, 2013, 04:05:52 PM
Quote
Connecticut woman gunned down in DC believed Obama was communicating with her, official says


Quote
The suspect in the high-speed chase between the White House and the Capitol Building was identified Friday by a law enforcement source as a dental hygienist from Connecticut with a history of mental issues.

The source identified the woman as Miriam Carey, 34, of Stamford, Conn. Carey tried to plow her car into a barricade at the White House, then led cops on a high-speed chase before being shot dead near the Capitol, according to reports.

Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News that investigators believed  Carey suffered "serious" mental issues and that President Obama was trying to communicate with her through radio waves.

Sources tell Fox News that the FBI is currently investigating how long the suspect was in Washington, DC and why she had travelled there from Connecticut.

Leslie Silva, a Stamford lawyer who has represented Carey, said she was unaware of any connection or reason why Carey would have been in Washington.

“Oh my goodness, I represented her,” Silva said to when reached by phone.  “She was a really nice woman, we had [our] children at about the same time, we had pleasant conversation.”

Silva added that she represented Carey when she bought her Stamford condo and again more recently in a dispute over a small amount of money with the development that was settled in February, the last time she communicated with the suspect.

“I had nothing but pleasant conversations with her when I represented her and I’m just really really shocked,” she said.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/04/connecticut-woman-killed-after-capitol-hill-chase-reportedly-had-mental-health/
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: Fishrrman on October 04, 2013, 11:02:53 PM
[[ Remember the 'training' posters that came out a few years ago of old people, pregnant women and children? ]]

I remember those posters, quite well.

[[ Police have been trained that everybody's a terrorist and non-compliance is to be met with deadly force. ]]

The woman never displayed a weapon (other than driving erratically in her car), of ANY kind. If she had been a terrorist and had a bomb in her car, she most certainly would have detonated it quickly. Instead, all she did was drive away.

[[ What we saw is simply the result of that training... ]]

Indeed.
SHOOT FIRST, ask questions later.
If anyone questions your judgment, just say "terrorism!"
That'll shut 'em up.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: famousdayandyear on October 04, 2013, 11:15:09 PM
[[ Remember the 'training' posters that came out a few years ago of old people, pregnant women and children? ]]

I remember those posters, quite well.

[[ Police have been trained that everybody's a terrorist and non-compliance is to be met with deadly force. ]]

The woman never displayed a weapon (other than driving erratically in her car), of ANY kind. If she had been a terrorist and had a bomb in her car, she most certainly would have detonated it quickly. Instead, all she did was drive away.

[[ What we saw is simply the result of that training... ]]

Indeed.
SHOOT FIRST, ask questions later.
If anyone questions your judgment, just say "terrorism!"
That'll shut 'em up.

And if a city block had been blown wide open with hundreds of casualties, you and every other American citizen with blinders to islamic jihad would be yelling:  "Where is law enforcement?"
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: EC on October 04, 2013, 11:46:11 PM
Did they have to shoot? - Yes. A car is a weapon and far deadlier than a gun. While Dan raises the (perfectly valid) point that the police are not obliged to aid you, they have exactly the same rights of self preservation as anyone else.

Did they attempt NOT to shoot? - Hell yes! She was given, from the vids I have seen, at least three separate chances to stand down. She chose not to take them. Why? Who knows? Only person who does isn't going to be talking any more.

For me, I'd have shot her first time. LE officers are obviously a lot more patient - it's a different skill set. The Capitol Police deserve all the praise here.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: famousdayandyear on October 04, 2013, 11:50:31 PM
Did they have to shoot? - Yes. A car is a weapon and far deadlier than a gun. While Dan raises the (perfectly valid) point that the police are not obliged to aid you, they have exactly the same rights of self preservation as anyone else.

Did they attempt NOT to shoot? - Hell yes! She was given, from the vids I have seen, at least three separate chances to stand down. She chose not to take them. Why? Who knows? Only person who does isn't going to be talking any more.

For me, I'd have shot her first time. LE officers are obviously a lot more patient - it's a different skill set. The Capitol Police deserve all the praise here.

Absolutely right on.  Am so tired of the piling on of LE from people who are not trained or have experienced executing protocol under extreme duress.  Thank you for your post.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: truth_seeker on October 05, 2013, 12:01:41 AM
Absolutely right on.  Am so tired of the piling on of LE from people who are not trained or have experienced executing protocol under extreme duress.  Thank you for your post.
You and I agree on this.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: EC on October 05, 2013, 12:13:49 AM
Absolutely right on.  Am so tired of the piling on of LE from people who are not trained or have experienced executing protocol under extreme duress.  Thank you for your post.

Thank you!  :laugh:

It's one of the reasons veterans (as in combat, not support) make terrible LE officers in general. The mindset is totally different. It simply has to be that way. Was talking to a mate of mine a while back - he's on the armed response unit, sort of your equivalent of SWAT. He goes into a situation and there are dozens of factors drilled into him to assess. Number of bystanders, risk of stray rounds, personal safety, the probability of it ending without anyone getting holes in them.
Compare that to my training. Threat? Shoot it. Elegantly simple in a war zone, but not exactly appropriate in civilian life! I totally respect LE officers (in the main, like any where else there will be petty and power mad tyrants) simply because I know how hard their job is.

In fact, thinking about it, look at the Afghanistan RoE. That is what an LEO does automatically. Not what a soldier does automatically.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: aligncare on October 05, 2013, 08:15:58 AM
Cincinnatus posted new information about the woman that she was perhaps incapable of responding rationally to police commands because of the state of mind she was in. Suggesting that if you're sick and behind the wheel near the White House police have no way of dealing with it except to use deadly force. All around a tragic incident.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: EC on October 05, 2013, 09:08:57 AM
My friend. That is what the police do. They assess and deal with threats in the appropriate manner. They are quite simply not allowed to take risks with the principles, nor any innocent bystanders.

The Capitol Police did well here. Totally by the book, including several chances to surrender.
Title: Re: Did They Have to Shoot? by Joel B. Pollak
Post by: aligncare on October 05, 2013, 10:31:22 AM
I'm not trying to second-guess the cops here, but I have seen video of a dangerous bear or moose shot with tranquilizer rather than destroyed. On the other hand, I have seen vid of a rampaging elephant shot dead. Like I said, seemed a tragic end.