https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...rkland-massacre-luoyc9Rc-k6vUKPdBbSGKA?full=1
Someone please tell me this is fake.
Someone please tell me this is fake.
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...rkland-massacre-luoyc9Rc-k6vUKPdBbSGKA?full=1
Someone please tell me this is fake.
Saw this on Jim Lucas' FB page.
404 file not found! Cliff notes please?https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...rkland-massacre-luoyc9Rc-k6vUKPdBbSGKA?full=1
Someone please tell me this is fake.
404 file not found! Cliff notes please?
Ahhh! Saw that in the other thread.I also found it on Jim Lucas's page.
But now I don't see it.
It staged that some of the officers that went in to the school were being disciplined.
Ahhh! Saw that in the other thread.
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...rkland-massacre-luoyc9Rc-k6vUKPdBbSGKA?full=1
Someone please tell me this is fake.
Reading the article the issue was not with them responding, but for not notifying their department that they were responding. It could have been handled with a "Hey, next time why don't you let us know you are doing the job that BCSO deputies wouldn't" and not a suspension from SWAT.
Sure it could have, if that was the real issue. Probably a good example of their brass digging around for something to hang them on. Unless it's changed, I recall being on the street and being told to *not* tie up the radio backing on to runs like that, just show up and sort the CAD out later if you can't do it on your computer. It looks like fewer and fewer departments want anything resembling a warrior ethos. If they'd found the shooter and given him a big hug and asked about his feelings, they'd have gotten medals.
For the LEOs, is _any_ part of the stated rationale for temporarily suspending the two officers valid? Set aside the circumstances of the incident in this case, but in "normal" operations, does this sort of wrist-slap make sense? I've read what BBI & Frank_N_Stein had to say and I believe I understand, but I'm trying to understand if there would normally be a valid reason for doing this.
I see this same kind of attitude in law enforcement. It's highly possible to go your entire career without throwing a punch, swinging a baton or even drawing your weapon. Most agencies have unions that provide protection for their officers and you really can't get fired for doing nothing. Most of these risk averse types usually promote up the chain to make sure law enforcement will never become a contact sport for them, or the first time they get punched in the face they quit. On the other hand, if you're naturally disposed towards being a hunter of evil your chances of meeting violence rise to a near certainty. The cake eaters can't fathom why anyone would want to do that, so they look upon the hunters with dread and suspicion. The hunters wind up (complaining) about the cake eaters of internet forums.
My opinion is that in law enforcement showing initiative may get troops in trouble more than anything else..
I'm sure it's becoming like this everywhere...but for us the answer is basically 95% social worker to 5% cop training. And sadly, that's not an exaggeration. Multi day classes on CIT, Creating an Inclusive Environment, Implicit Bias, Procedural Justice, Community Engagement, etc. No firearms training at all, period. And DT for four hours every two years.
Then train for social work.
Then reward social work.
Then punish warrior ethos.
The pendulum is swinging again. Better you get killed then make the dept look bad on YouTube. Dead cops makes the public sympathetic. Cops that win make a lot of the admins wring their hands and/or clutch their pearls.
Sure it could have, if that was the real issue. Probably a good example of their brass digging around for something to hang them on. Unless it's changed, I recall being on the street and being told to *not* tie up the radio backing on to runs like that, just show up and sort the CAD out later if you can't do it on your computer. It looks like fewer and fewer departments want anything resembling a warrior ethos. If they'd found the shooter and given him a big hug and asked about his feelings, they'd have gotten medals. ... "Postumously"
Valid from a street officer or general public perspective? Probably not. Valid from a management "you embarrassed us and we are scared of your willingness to do violence" perspective? Absolutely. The pendulum is swinging at many departments.
Quotes from around the US show a pattern:
Some places have been like this for decades. I've got a good friend who's retired from a different department. When I told him I was in a shooting the first thing he told me was they would move me to an admin spot and never let me work the street/investigations again because they'd be afraid I'd get in another one. That wasn't my experience with my department, and I felt pretty supported, but it was obviously his experience.
For the LEOs, is _any_ part of the stated rationale for temporarily suspending the two officers valid? Set aside the circumstances of the incident in this case, but in "normal" operations, does this sort of wrist-slap make sense? I've read what BBI & Frank_N_Stein had to say and I believe I understand, but I'm trying to understand if there would normally be a valid reason for doing this.
I also found it on Jim Lucas's page.
But now I don't see it.
It staged that some of the officers that went in to the school were being disciplined.