+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North of Miami
    Posts
    2,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCPSPDcop View Post

    Sadly, here in DC, we (the police) are prohibited by General Order from shooting at a moving car under any circumstances. Which I think is the most retarded thing that has ever been instituted in the written form... cuz we all know that there are some very good and logical reasons to shoot at a moving car.
    Who enacted such a dumb law or ruling? Whomever did I ask this question
    If a member of your family were to mowed down, run over by someone
    intent on doing so, would you shoot at the driver before they committed this act?

    It amazes some parole board member allows some real bad person out of prison
    If you think he or she is such a wonderful person then let them come live with you
    Better yet, if the person you set free commits another, I think a good idea would
    be the parole board member to be sent to jail, and not the parole who committed
    another crime

    Oh yes, Bravo to that Brinks Guard.




























    w
    http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ Greatest Comedy team ever!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by copelandamuffy View Post
    Who enacted such a dumb law or ruling?
    Well it's not a "law"... it is a Police Department General Order... General Orders are enacted by the Chief of Police as rules or something similar to "standard operating procedures" for members of the police force.

    The thought process behind that General Order is that it does no good to shoot the operator of a vehicle because then the moving vehicle will not have an operator and is then more dangerous to the public. And I agree it is an absolutely ridiculous General Order that hasn't been well thought out; but rather was a knee jerk reaction to various incidents.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North of Miami
    Posts
    2,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by combatcoastie View Post
    In training, they told us to drive away if our partner is robbed because by eliminating the truck, you eliminate the motive for the robbery. Also, at our branch, all of the gun ports on the trucks were sealed shut... I knew I had made a mistake on my second day on the job and unfortunately it took me 6 months to find a job to replace it.

    From your posting if the driver of the Brink's truck witnessed this Brinks Guard being robbed the driver is suppose to
    drive away and leave his partner vulnerable to these robbers? Sorry, no can do. Fire my a** if you so please, but I will do all I can to bring aid to my partner. I will not just drive away. Wonder how the CEO of Brinks would feel if
    he was being robbed and the driver, drove away leaving him or her as I wrote vulnerable to the robbers
    Better yet, wonder how the CEO would feel if the guard was a member of his family, and the driver just drove away.
    http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ Greatest Comedy team ever!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North of Miami
    Posts
    2,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCPSPDcop View Post
    Well it's not a "law"... it is a Police Department General Order... General Orders are enacted by the Chief of Police as rules or something similar to "standard operating procedures" for members of the police force.

    The thought process behind that General Order is that it does no good to shoot the operator of a vehicle because then the moving vehicle will not have an operator and is then more dangerous to the public. And I agree it is an absolutely ridiculous General Order that hasn't been well thought out; but rather was a knee jerk reaction to various incidents.
    I get the picture that if you shoot the driver, you have a car without an operator. Yes I probably would allow the
    bad guy or bad girl driving the car to flee, if the car were in danger of hitting the General public if I shoot him or her
    Yes the law needs some more thought, and not knee jerk reaction.
    http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ Greatest Comedy team ever!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    724

    Default

    It does not surprise me that a armored car company would have
    a policy for the driver of the armored car to drive away while a
    robbery is in progress.

    Armored car companies have employees working armed and unarmed.
    The common denomitor is the money. IMO the guard is carrying a
    to fire arm to protect himself. The money is insured.

    LEO's sometimes fire at people resisting arrest.
    Prison guards can fire at escapees.
    Mom and Pop store owners protect their cash also and
    sometimes fire at robbers. I don't think store owners are
    questioned why they fired at a armed robber.
    I don't see why an armed guard should be questioned as to why
    he fired his weapon in an armed robbery.

    BTW...nice grouping on the side of the vehicle.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts