Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-Deputy Charged for Not Responding to Parkland Shooter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Soper View Post

    Again, you are ignorant of how LE works. You keep applying security guard level thinking to LE tactics. You are wrong. How many times must you be told that before you figure it out? Based on your beliefs, LE should stop, analyze, drive slowly, take their time responding to ANY call that could remotely be dangerous... Wake up. That’s a stupid statement.

    We don't stop and do a “safety assessment “. We spend about two seconds deciding where to go and move, getting input while we are making decisions. That’s because by nature, we are always analyzing our environment. Not sitting in a guard shack staring at a DAR.

    You clearly have no idea about how things are done. You should stop posting about this as it clearly shows your lack of knowledge and inability to adapt. Again, your customers are getting ripped off if you are providing EM/TA. You don’t know the first thing about it.

    I, and others, don’t care what you think we should do, I, and my Brothers and Sisters, act and do as we are trained and expected. Just because it takes you half an hour to formulate a response, doesn’t mean we operate that way.

    Get it through your skull: FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL LE are EXPECTED to respond into and engage AS. Period.
    No one's saying that initially assessing the situation has to take half an hour or anything like that. However, it is critical to any emergency situation, even if it's only a few seconds long. Deciding how to respond to a situation does only include a safety assessment; it also includes how best to respond to produce maximum results. Assessing and re-assessing the situation isn't only "security guard" thinking; it's a fundamental aspect of all emergency response/emergency management training.

    You have suggested that an AS incident means that every standard practice is thrown out the window. It is recognized that quick engagement is essential, but that doesn't mean that all standards of emergency response should be ignored. Taking a few seconds to assess the situation instead of running blindly in is a good idea.

    Comment


    • #32
      No. I have not suggested that we are throwing assessments out the window. What exactly don’t you understand about all this? Why are you arguing about it? Is it because LE operations are so out of your realm that you refuse to understand that you don’t know what you are talking about?

      I’ve (and others) have tried multiple times to tell you what LE standards are, yet you continue to apply your limited security knowledge to them. I don’t have hours to spend, nor would I waste them, trying to teach you how we work on a daily basis. Your limited security trained brain could not grasp the concepts, as shown by EVERY post you’ve made on this subject.

      You are ignorant. Plain and simple. Ignorant.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Soper View Post
        No. I have not suggested that we are throwing assessments out the window. What exactly don’t you understand about all this? Why are you arguing about it? Is it because LE operations are so out of your realm that you refuse to understand that you don’t know what you are talking about?

        I’ve (and others) have tried multiple times to tell you what LE standards are, yet you continue to apply your limited security knowledge to them. I don’t have hours to spend, nor would I waste them, trying to teach you how we work on a daily basis. Your limited security trained brain could not grasp the concepts, as shown by EVERY post you’ve made on this subject.

        You are ignorant. Plain and simple. Ignorant.
        You are suggesting that because I work in the security industry that brain is "limited"; that's a horrible stereotype. You keep acting as though LE standards say that police officers are expected to do things that they know is LIKELY to kill them (not "could" kill them, "good possibility", etc, but "likely to"). They are not; we don't expect police officers to throw their lives away. It's no different than a police officer seeing someone drowning in the river. Normally, they would be expected to jump in and save them. However, if after assessing the situation they realized that they probably would die and not save the person (for example, the water was very cold, there was a strong current, etc..) then no, they would not be expected to jump in.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

          You are suggesting that because I work in the security industry that brain is "limited"; that's a horrible stereotype. You keep acting as though LE standards say that police officers are expected to do things that they know is LIKELY to kill them (not "could" kill them, "good possibility", etc, but "likely to"). They are not; we don't expect police officers to throw their lives away. It's no different than a police officer seeing someone drowning in the river. Normally, they would be expected to jump in and save them. However, if after assessing the situation they realized that they probably would die and not save the person (for example, the water was very cold, there was a strong current, etc..) then no, they would not be expected to jump in.
          You DON’T KNOW ANYTHING about LE, so you would be smart to stop posting. What you “don’t expect” isn’t germane to what LE does. We aren’t discussing drownings, we are discussing AS.
          You keep posting garbage reasons to try and justify your narrow minded stance. You are FLAT OUT WRONG. Get it? WRONG. You keep changing things to try and justify your statements, grow up. Children do that when they are losing an argument.

          LE standards are not something you should ever try to discuss. You are ignorant. All your posts are based on a completely useless security guard education. It has NOTHING to do with LE. You are on par with the three amigos who were banned because of their lack of sense.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Soper View Post

            You DON’T KNOW ANYTHING about LE, so you would be smart to stop posting. What you “don’t expect” isn’t germane to what LE does. We aren’t discussing drownings, we are discussing AS.
            You keep posting garbage reasons to try and justify your narrow minded stance. You are FLAT OUT WRONG. Get it? WRONG. You keep changing things to try and justify your statements, grow up. Children do that when they are losing an argument.

            LE standards are not something you should ever try to discuss. You are ignorant. All your posts are based on a completely useless security guard education. It has NOTHING to do with LE. You are on par with the three amigos who were banned because of their lack of sense.
            My experience in the field of security is a lot more than "security guard education", thanks. You keep saying that "Active Shooter" situations are those where police officers are expected to abandon all logic and reasoning, and run into it even if there's a near 100% chance of dying with no positive outcome.

            Police officers run toward the danger instead of it, I understand that. Let's not confuse running into danger with needlessly getting yourself killed.

            If you don't want to hear the opinions of mere security guards, then you might be in the wrong forum. There are foru

            Comment


            • #36
              I’m here to ensure that people like you don’t get away with posting utter nonsense. If you care so much about being constantly corrected by a SME, then stop posting this crap. You are the ONLY guard on here opining this drivel.

              Until you recognize your inability to understand that there are things done beyond your security level of experience, it’s just a waste of time trying to explain things.

              Your entire history you base your comments on is as a security guard/SOC watch stander, not LE. You don't know a thing about LE, have no experience in LE, have never attended LE training, have never written policy, never taught, never been certified to teach LE, it’s just you flapping your jaws and showing the world what an ignorant person you are.

              Stick to Security Guard stuff. That seems about your level.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Soper View Post
                I’m here to ensure that people like you don’t get away with posting utter nonsense. If you care so much about being constantly corrected by a SME, then stop posting this crap. You are the ONLY guard on here opining this drivel.

                Until you recognize your inability to understand that there are things done beyond your security level of experience, it’s just a waste of time trying to explain things.

                Your entire history you base your comments on is as a security guard/SOC watch stander, not LE. You don't know a thing about LE, have no experience in LE, have never attended LE training, have never written policy, never taught, never been certified to teach LE, it’s just you flapping your jaws and showing the world what an ignorant person you are.

                Stick to Security Guard stuff. That seems about your level.
                The fact that you keep up with the Straw Man attacks instead of addressing my statement shows your level of ignorance, as well as your constant reference to me as a security guard and inability to admit that some people in the security industry have a lot more experience than a guard.

                Answer the question, yes or no: if a police officer is respond to an Active Shooter situation, and realizes that by "going in" he/she is will almost certainly die and accomplish nothing, do they go in or not?

                On a side note, I've found that most people who are dismissive of people in the security industry usually aren't police officers. They're usually in positions like corrections, "special police", etc.. where they're desperately trying to show how they're somehow "better" than security guards, though the police don't recognize them as equalis.

                Comment


                • #38
                  So to be sure that it wasn't my limited "security guard mind" that was at fault, I discussed the matter with one of my work colleagues, who is a retired police officer who works with us part-time. He agreed that while police are expected to enter dangerous situations, including ones where their lives could be at risk, that they would NEVER be expected to enter a situation where for various reasons they would likely be killed with no positive results. As he pointed out, police officers have wives, children, etc. too.

                  Comment

                  Leaderboard

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X