Interested in the NWT boards opinions

[jross]

Marine says the government owns you.  You follow orders always unless it is an order to break the law.

Cop says he could lay his badge down at any moment without consequence.

And he shames the coward cop.

[Husker_Du]

4 hours ago, mspart said:

Someone(s) already died and he did nothing to stop more from being killed.   It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch, it is that he allowed it to happen by taking no action.   I don't think that is an insane precedent.

mspart

what defines 'enough action' ? 

what if there were two shooters and he got one but the other killed more people? 

what if there was a scenario where he was inundated with bullets and couldn't get a shot off?

the number of scenarios is infinite. 

getting fired for poor performance is one thing. 

going to prison is another. 

and in this culture we currently have now, they'd find the bottom quick. 

every gas station robbery would blame the police for not being there. 

[bnwtwg]

12 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

This is a tough one, except for the fact that that guy shouldn't have ever been a police officer.  

Seems to me that every cop I know or have ever known swears by the moto "To Serve and Protect"...and they do it at all costs...especially when it comes to children.

Uvalde has entered the chat

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, bnwtwg said:

Uvalde has entered the chat

That’s the one I was thinking of too.  When they handcuffed the mother to keep her from going in, when freed she went in and brought her children out while the cops were looking for keys.  Or something. 

[Le duke]

What is the consequence in the military for running away from a fight?  (Discharge and prison are possible). What is the reasoning for it?
Why it different for the school shooting scenario?
https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine-SDnVxWnDhgenqAXO/
 

Actually, that is still a crime which can be charged as a capital offense. Misbehavior before the enemy, and desertion.

Purportedly, COs were more likely to just execute people on the battlefield in WWII than bother to actually press charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

the number of scenarios is infinite. 

Which is why it's certainly reasonable to judge each scenario on its own merits, and not blanket one action for every scenario.

[Le duke]

I won’t pretend to know the level of training of the average LEO. Let’s get that out of the way right now.

Friend of mine is a State Trooper. Been on the force for more than a decade. He gets to the range once, maybe twice a year. Last time I saw him he told me he’d put more rounds into dying deer, elk and bears along the roadside than paper targets that year.

In the military, your training (in an infantry unit) is exhaustive. It identifies those ill suited and removed them. Those that can be reformed and remediated are trained up to standard. You carry a loaded weapon, all the time, at the low ready, and shoot regularly. Radio use and etiquette. You work on battle drills, movement, actions-on-contact scenarios, etc. You know who combatants are, when you must render aid. I would imagine this is very different than the average patrolman.

So, is Parkland LEO prepared to enter a complex, unknown scenario? Likely not. I get any reservations he or she might have. However, you never, ever have perfect knowledge of a situation. Your job, regardless of what the courts say it is, is to save little kids from being shot to death.

That said, holy shit, man. Uvalde cops? Should be fired to the last man.

I don’t believe in capital punishment. But in cases of pure cowardice, by armed men, I might be fine with them bringing back the old Roman tradition of decimation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreatWhiteNorth]

On 12/18/2023 at 8:42 PM, VakAttack said:

https://www.wspa.com/news/national/florida-deputys-legal-team-says-he-didnt-have-an-obligation-to-stop-parkland-school-shooter/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

Lawyers for the fired cop in Parkland say he has no duty to protect the students?  Does he?  Should he have a LEGAL [not moral] duty?

Back to the actual topic and question from the OP...

• Does the cop have a legal responsibility to take a bullet for a student?
  • No.
• Is the cop less than heroic for not being willing to take a bullet?
  • Yes.
• Is the cop a "coward?' That depends on your perspective. 

We mostly all think we will be hero's when the situation calls us to be. But the reality is that we won't really know until that situation occurs. Putting yourself between a shooter and civilians. Rushing into a burning building engulfed with smoke to save people who may or may not even be there - or a cat. Crawling across a frozen lake to save a drowning person - or a dog.

Heroes are AWESOME. But not everyone is a hero. A lot of good people aren't heroes - but it doesn't make them cowards.

[WrestlingRasta]

The original questionn wasn’t does the cop have a legal obligation, the question was SHOULD. 
 

My opinion is yes because you signed a contract and accepted compensation for the specific, detailed purpose of protecting those children. 
 

Is he a coward because he had a weapon and a signed contract for compensation to protect those children, but did nothing while those unarmed people inside were slaughtered….yes he is a coward. 

[Paul158]

8 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Back to the actual topic and question from the OP...

• Does the cop have a legal responsibility to take a bullet for a student?
  • No.
• Is the cop less than heroic for not being willing to take a bullet?
  • Yes.
• Is the cop a "coward?' That depends on your perspective. 

We mostly all think we will be hero's when the situation calls us to be. But the reality is that we won't really know until that situation occurs. Putting yourself between a shooter and civilians. Rushing into a burning building engulfed with smoke to save people who may or may not even be there - or a cat. Crawling across a frozen lake to save a drowning person - or a dog.

Heroes are AWESOME. But not everyone is a hero. A lot of good people aren't heroes - but it doesn't make them cowards.

Excellent reply. 

[jross]

Agreed, nice post from GWN.

Odds are that the cop is a good person, and he likely faced danger and put the public's safety ahead of his own before. 

The cop's inaction was cowardice that day, and their community will never know what could have been. 

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said the cop should have “addressed the killer, killed the killer.” The Miami Herald reports that deputies are trained to “engage active shooters.”

“I am devastated,” Israel said at a news conference. “Sick to my stomach. He never went in.”

The cop was suspended without pay.  

[Scouts Honor]

goes against the idea that:

no one needs a gun... thats why we have cops...

[Paul158]

33 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

goes against the idea that:

no one needs a gun... thats why we have cops...

I don't think the average citizen has any idea of the time that it takes for a police officer to get their home. In a rural area its 15 to 30 minutes, if there isn't any traffic. When someone invades your home you have less than a minute to get your gun to defend yourself. If you live in a city it might take about the same time for the police to get to your home ( 15 to 30 minutes). Calling 911 is great if the intruder agrees to stay outside until the police get there.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Paul158

[ionel]

36 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I don't think the average citizen has any idea of the time that it takes for a police officer to get their home. In a rural area its 15 to 30 minutes, if there isn't any traffic. 

ahh ... some folks don't live that close to town and its county sheriff not town police.   What if the sheriff is clear on the other side of the county?  

[Paul158]

19 minutes ago, ionel said:

ahh ... some folks don't live that close to town and its county sheriff not town police.   What if the sheriff is clear on the other side of the county?  

That is my situation and millions of Americans. When common sense is absent it doesn't have a good ending.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

I don't think the average citizen has any idea of the time that it takes for a police officer to get their home. In a rural area its 15 to 30 minutes, if there isn't any traffic. When someone invades your home you have less than a minute to get your gun to defend yourself. If you live in a city it might take about the same time for the police to get to your home ( 15 to 30 minutes). Calling 911 is great if the intruder agrees to stay outside until the police get there.

You say when someone invades your home. How many times has someone invaded your home.

For me, in 59 years, it has never happened. The one time that I know of for anyone in my extended family (hundreds and hundreds of person years), the invasion was when no one was home. And one of the things they stole was a gun.

[ionel]

39 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

That is my situation and millions of Americans. When common sense is absent it doesn't have a good ending.

But maybe Biden's social worker can get there quicker?

[WrestlingRasta]

How did home invasion get involved in a topic about a law enforcement officer who contracted and accepted compensation to protect children at a school? 

[ionel]

Why is ban so sad & confused?   

[Paul158]

40 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You say when someone invades your home. How many times has someone invaded your home.

For me, in 59 years, it has never happened. The one time that I know of for anyone in my extended family (hundreds and hundreds of person years), the invasion was when no one was home. And one of the things they stole was a gun.

Did you ever considered the reason why you or people you know haven't been invaded? Maybe you or the families you speak of are similar to my community.  I live in small development out in the country ( 5 acre parcels). There are about 15 families. I'm pretty sure all homes have guns and they know how to use them. Most of the homes have dogs. I would consider that a deterrent to unscrupulous idiots wanting to cause harm. Our (surrounding) community is also fortunate to have large influx of military families. So of course they own guns and know how to use them.  I'm glad for you that it has never happened. But are you claiming that we shouldn't have any guns in the event something would happen. We should just call 911?

[PortaJohn]

11 minutes ago, ionel said:

Why is ban so sad & confused?   

Holiday Blues.  

[PortaJohn]

Just curious and have to ask for those of you who have called this man a coward have any of you been in a combat situation where you actually had to kill someone else and face your own mortality?  This isn't to say this man failed in his duties but people in general aren't as heroic as they like to think and only a very small percentage of the population is genetically wired to kill another human being.  The military is well aware of this and has put in place training methods to get soldiers more accustomed to actually ending another humans life . 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Just curious and have to ask for those of you who have called this man a coward have any of you been in a combat situation where you actually had to kill someone else and face your own mortality?  This isn't to say this man failed in his duties but people in general aren't as heroic as they like to think and only a very small percentage of the population is genetically wired to kill another human being.  The military is well aware of this and has put in place training methods to get soldiers more accustomed to actually ending another humans life . 

To answer your question as I have stated this was act of a coward. No I have not risked my life with the added element of having to take someone else’s.   I have risked to save children (run into a fire) But neither your nor my examples relate here, as I have not contracted and received compensation for the specific purpose of protecting those children, nor am I a trained police officer.  Entering into something that you knew involved inherent risk, which in this case up to and includes loss of life, and you accept your end of that agreement, but at the most critical time you back away from the primary function you are there for……I mean, that’s not at all a similar question to what you are asking. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

35 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Did you ever considered the reason why you or people you know haven't been invaded? Maybe you or the families you speak of are similar to my community.  I live in small development out in the country ( 5 acre parcels). There are about 15 families. I'm pretty sure all homes have guns and they know how to use them. Most of the homes have dogs. I would consider that a deterrent to unscrupulous idiots wanting to cause harm. Our (surrounding) community is also fortunate to have large influx of military families. So of course they own guns and know how to use them.  I'm glad for you that it has never happened. But are you claiming that we shouldn't have any guns in the event something would happen. We should just call 911?

I have considered it. It is likely because this happens very rarely.

I live in a very different situation than you. I live in a densely populated suburb of Chicago. Several of my children live in Chicago. I used to live in Chicago. But none of us have ever had a home invader.

You used the word when, not if, you have a home invader. I am curious why that is.

One more question. If you live in a community that has a lot of guns, all of whose owners know how to use them, a lot of dogs, and a large influx of military families, all of which serve as a deterrent to unscrupulous idiots AND owning a gun increases the risk of a loved one being injured or killed by that gun, wouldn't you be better off not owning a gun and allowing the communal deterrence be your protection?

[Paul158]

5 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Just curious and have to ask for those of you who have called this man a coward have any of you been in a combat situation where you actually had to kill someone else and face your own mortality?  This isn't to say this man failed in his duties but people in general aren't as heroic as they like to think and only a very small percentage of the population is genetically wired to kill another human being.  The military is well aware of this and has put in place training methods to get soldiers more accustomed to actually ending another humans life . 

I have been reluctant  to add this discussion but here goes. I haven't been in the military.  But my son and 3 son in-laws are active military. I also had well over 2000 active duty or retired military customers. Most of, if not all highly skilled in warfare and all that it in tales. None of them would have taken this job with the security practices that were in place. They would have given the school board a long list of measures to be put in place to be able to protect the students and faculty. With these measures in place it would be highly improbable that the shooter would ever attempt to come to the school because it would no longer be a soft target. Its doubtful he would get near or in the school. By far and away for the longest time schools have been extremely soft targets. The shooter in Tennessee choice that particular school because it had the least amount of security of schools he was considering to murder the children. It was a soft target.