Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation

Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.

unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words

anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.

sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.

Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.

I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....

OOOOoooooooor in the 1 in a million chance that its a bunch of no good scum ready to do something terrible a phone con may spook them into doing something far worse. or they straight lie and proceed to do something terrible. if you think an actual threat assessment is easily done over the phone then i dont know what to tell you.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation

Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.

unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words

anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.

sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.

Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.

I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....

OOOOoooooooor in the 1 in a million chance that its a bunch of no good scum ready to do something terrible a phone con may spook them into doing something far worse. or they straight lie and proceed to do something terrible. if you think an actual threat assessment is easily done over the phone then i dont know what to tell you.

So we just assume everybody is guilty and planning mass murder?

No the police can go ahead and take full responsibility for being lax and something bad happening or they can take full responsibility for not being lax and something bad happening.

on the one hand many false reports end up being nothing but its much easier for people to take advantage of if all you are going to get is a phone call asking if everything is ok.

on the other hand many people are going to hate the show of force but if and when something stupid happens at least they are there.

How many acceptable innocents die until?

 ProwlerPC wrote:
How many acceptable innocents die until?

You tell me

how many preventable tragedies, not just gun related, would you be willing to except?

its a world full of big numbers its going to happen one way or another.

 Desubot wrote:

 ProwlerPC wrote:
How many acceptable innocents die until?

You tell me

how many preventable tragedies, not just gun related, would you be willing to except?

its a world full of big numbers its going to happen one way or another.

If I'm gonna get killed, at least I prefer to die at the hands of someone that we aren't paying to protect us.
That way at least some justice can be served agaisn't that individual.

 Desubot wrote:
No the police can go ahead and take full responsibility for being lax and something bad happening or they can take full responsibility for not being lax and something bad happening.

on the one hand many false reports end up being nothing but its much easier for people to take advantage of if all you are going to get is a phone call asking if everything is ok.

on the other hand many people are going to hate the show of force but if and when something stupid happens at least they are there.

My Scenario:

Officer: "Hello, this is the [Generic Police Department]. Is this the occupant of room 502?"

Occupant: "Yes sir, how may I help you?"

Officer: "We had a report of a weapon being waved about. We were calling to follow up on the report."

Occupant: "I do not have a weapon with me, I am not sure how they got that."

Officer: "Is there another occupant in the room with you?"

Occupant: "Yes there is."

Officer: "May I speak with them to confirm this?"

Occupant: "Yes you may."

Occupant 2: "Hello."

Officer: "Hello, I am just looking to confirm with you that there is no weapon in the room with the two of you."

Occupant 2: "There is no weapon here with us. It must have been a mistake."

Officer: "I apologize for the inconvenience, you two have a great night." *hang up*

Your scenario:

Officer: "Hello, this is-"

Occupant: "WOOOOOOOO! I KNEW YOU PIGGIES WOULD COME SNORTIN AROUND SOONER OR LATER! YOU WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!" *multiple gunshots, families screaming*

Yeah, one is far more likely than the other here.....

But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.

Or you know.
Officer: "Hello, this is the [Generic Police Department]. Is this the occupant of room 502?"

Occupant: "Yes sir, how may I help you?"

Officer: "We had a report of a weapon being waved about. We were calling to follow up on the report."

Occupant: "I do not have a weapon with me, I am not sure how they got that."

Officer: "Is there another occupant in the room with you?"

Occupant: "Yes there is."

Officer: "May I speak with them to confirm this?"

Occupant: "Yes you may."

Occupant 2: "Hello."

Officer: "Hello, I am just looking to confirm with you that there is no weapon in the room with the two of you."

Occupant 2: "There is no weapon here with us. It must have been a mistake."

Officer: "I apologize for the inconvenience, you two have a great night." *hang up*

Occupant 2: ok they fell for it lets go do that (generic illegal thing) we were going to do.

or

"oh gak some one snitched on us click click"

do or alternatively.

Officer: "Hello, this is-"

Occupant: Feth the police (regardless of having a weapon)

you are free to make any level of extreme assumptions BOTH ways but in the end it doesnt change the fact that its just words and if you are willing to live on simple fate that a person will not lie to the police then feth it yolo.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.

Well yeah no one wants zero oversight on dumb cops with itchy trigger fingers. but making courtesy calls or making untrained randos hotel management confirm a call first is just irresponsible.

True. I am going to distance myself from the phone call and front desk suggestions. A patrol unit is reasonable to check it out with nearby units on standby. It's what they do. Starting right from the beginning with mobilizing SWAT based on an initial phone call seems unnecessarily escalated. Admittedly I too have no clue of the contents of that call. It's possible they heard gunfire through the call and streets had injured and dead on them and the news forgot to mention that detail. At which point I retract my line of thoughts.

So in Scenario 1 that you posted they would then be guilty of a crime and the police would get involved and arrest them. In the second Scenario you posted, the cops would then come out and investigate the situation, since clearly the people are non compliant.

Seems reasonable.

I think this is a worthwhile point of comparison.

While the outcome is effectively the same (perpetrator shot), the way the situation was handled is markedly different.

WARNING. GRAPHIC FOOTAGE

https://youtu.be/GAXlxrRF_6g



Moderator note: Removed embedded violent video.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

Indeed. Which is why I'd say the issue is with the dumb-nut who called the police just because he saw a gun. It's not with the way the police responded, its the fact that somebody felt the need to call them in the first place.

I definitely think if someone reports to the police they saw someone walking in front of a window with a gun, they have a responsibility to show up and make sure everything is OK. I don't think they should show up and pretend they are performing a room-clearing in Fallujah, however. Arizona is an open carry state and people have the right to lawfully carry firearms without being subject to summary execution by the police.

I have a lot of police officers in my family, and while I believe they need to take reasonable measures to protect themselves, at some point the scale got moved way, way too far in that direction to the detriment of the public at large. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to actually see a gun before using lethal force, and when cops use undue force, they need a little less benefit of the doubt when they go to trial. A non-officer who shot someone in that situation would have certainly gone to jail for the rest of their lives, and we should hold police to a higher standard, not a looser one.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

Indeed. Which is why I'd say the issue is with the dumb-nut who called the police just because he saw a gun. It's not with the way the police responded, its the fact that somebody felt the need to call them in the first place.

Are you gaking me? You take issue with the untrained public calling the police about something they are concerned about but have no expectation of knowing about, vs the cops who should probably actually know the law of the state they are being paid by to police?

Since when did the responsibility of policing the public fall on the public more than, ya know, the police? If we were all trained to identify and deal with threats like the police should be, we wouldn't need them

 Desubot wrote:

 ProwlerPC wrote:
How many acceptable innocents die until?

You tell me

how many preventable tragedies, not just gun related, would you be willing to except?

its a world full of big numbers its going to happen one way or another.

I don't think so. If cops learn how to be less jumpy hundreds of citizen will live and maybe just a few cops (but IMHO a number near zero) will die because they didn't shoot first.

The majority of those "incidents" were not risk situations. USA cops also can use tasers which are not lethal but neutralize a possible shooter as well.

Those cops that are involved in killing unarmed citizens are not average cops, are always bad ones. People that enjoy killing other people, typically former high school bullys and/or heavy drinkers obsessed with guns and violent movies/video games. A standard cop, even an american one, doesn't shoot towards anything that moves.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't think so. If cops learn how to be less jumpy hundreds of citizen will live and maybe just a few cops (but IMHO a number near zero) will die because they didn't shoot first.

IIRC there was a sharp spike in officer deaths back in the what, 1970s? Largely untrained police, carrying at the most a .38 revolver, facing much better armed criminals willing to kill. The current jumpiness stems from the police reactions to those bad days, as does the way they've been given better weapons (plus war on terror even more heavy equipment). Some police departments, like New York, could probably succesfully invade a small country.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So in Scenario 1 that you posted they would then be guilty of a crime and the police would get involved and arrest them. In the second Scenario you posted, the cops would then come out and investigate the situation, since clearly the people are non compliant.

Seems reasonable.

You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.

scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.

 Blackie wrote:


The majority of those "incidents" were not risk situations. USA cops also can use tasers which are not lethal but neutralize a possible shooter as well.

Dont mistake me for some leo lover and while i want my cops to be smarter and far better trained and very much not trigger happy, you cannot say any situation is a no risk situation until people comply (and no i dont mean just give up your rights and let them do anything they want) and are fully detained literally anything can happen and thats not just risk for the cops thats risk for everyone around them.

and tasers aren't a guarantee.

 Frazzled wrote:
It didn't offer the same information. Its a different viewpoint. The fact it wasn't admitted is nonsensical.

I can guarantee if it was a police officer who was shot it would have been.

Also unless you read the transcript you have no idea if that was the only evidence not admitted. Better you don't make statements like that.

Sorry - I ment the only video evidence that was excluded from the jury. From my understanding there were other police officers standing right next to him with camera footage. Seriosly - the judge would not have omitted the shooters camera footage if the different vantage point changed anything relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.

He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police because I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.

I find nothing wrong with the officers commands or demeanor (nothing out of the ordinary I see in countless LEO/swat documentaries I've seen - with live action) . They are particularly direct. "Don't reach back or I will shoot you". What about this do you take issue with? Also what do you mean by dustcover - from the video it appears closed to me - am I not seeing this correctly? Why would this have any affect on your opinion in this case anyways? I respect your experience but why do you expect a higher standard from LEO?

 Desubot wrote:


You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.

scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.

Scenario 1: What do you expect the police to do in the first scenario you posted? Going full swat on a call like that is silly. It ends in murder, as we have seen. If they were to show up and ask questions, they could just lie their way out of that, assuming they even have a reason to lie in the first place. It's not like it is hard to lie to the police. "Absolutely Officer, I will get that fixed right away." "Sure thing Officer, I will never jaywalk again." Open carry state. They are allowed to have guns.

Scenario 2: Um, either leave in a hurry or sit and wait for the police if they know they have done nothing wrong. Are you expecting some sort of hostage situation or mass shooting every time the police are called?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


You fething with me? Scenario 1 they lie so the police dont come in, they do whatever terrible thing they want to do and innocent people get hurt or worse killed.

scenario 2 yeah they get sent out. but what do you think a bunch of spooked scared or enraged people would do in the time it takes for a squad car to get from the station or near by to get there. people can and probably will get hurt. totally reasonable.

Scenario 1: What do you expect the police to do in the first scenario you posted? Going full swat on a call like that is silly. It ends in murder, as we have seen. If they were to show up and ask questions, they could just lie their way out of that, assuming they even have a reason to lie in the first place. It's not like it is hard to lie to the police. "Absolutely Officer, I will get that fixed right away." "Sure thing Officer, I will never jaywalk again." Open carry state. They are allowed to have guns.

Scenario 2: Um, either leave in a hurry or sit and wait for the police if they know they have done nothing wrong. Are you expecting some sort of hostage situation or mass shooting every time the police are called?

1) they ether take it serious as a serious threat aka swat team. and yes when they are doing stupid things like yelling really really stupid orders then yes people die, if the cops in this situation was component and just detained shaver quickly by not giving him a fething field sobriety test then they would of gone in and potentially resolved the entire issue and this wouldn't be news, or they send out a beat cop in a more lax manner, they may lie or they may not its a risk.
2) no im saying we dont know what is going to happen all you are doing by calling is potentially provoking something that may end up resulting in a worse situation than going there detaining them first and sorting out the details after.

What part of risk do you not understand. yes generally speaking people arent complete melon fething donkey caves but there are melon fething donkey caves. Do you think the risk is worth the chance?

Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?

Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.

you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?

Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.

you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.

Police are still required to have a real, expressible reason to detain someone. Suspicious activity is not enough. Legal activities (i.e. open carry) are not enough either obviously.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Woah woah, detain them? For what? On whose authority?

Detaining is not the same thing as being arrested.

you know that first guy in the vid that got pulled out? he wasn't arrested but they put him in handcuffs, they want to secure him and get him out of the way for his and everyone elses safety.

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

"Gun threat" means a lot, was he actively aiming at someone? or firing it?

Open carry means allowed to carry. It only becomes a threat if it's fired/aimed at someone iirc. Holding it is not illegal

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.

Sorry - I ment the only video evidence that was excluded from the jury. From my understanding there were other police officers standing right next to him with camera footage. Seriosly - the judge would not have omitted the shooters camera footage if the different vantage point changed anything relevant.

It would have been relevant. There had to be a different reason to exclude.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.

He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police because I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.

I find nothing wrong with the officers commands or demeanor (nothing out of the ordinary I see in countless LEO/swat documentaries I've seen - with live action) . They are particularly direct. "Don't reach back or I will shoot you". What about this do you take issue with? Also what do you mean by dustcover - from the video it appears closed to me - am I not seeing this correctly? Why would this have any affect on your opinion in this case anyways? I respect your experience but why do you expect a higher standard from LEO?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.

I pretty much agree that sending in swat here was probably the main cause for the shooting. I haven't seen the recording of the phone call if there is one...but anything short of shots being fired or a hostage situation - there is no reason for this guy to be there. 4-5 officers could easily have been deployed to investigate and swat called in to wait in the parking lot.

I understand the need to deal with the risk...to allow an active shooter situation to blow up after the las vegas shooting would have been a terrible terrible tragedy. This is ofc why the dept. over reacted i assume in the first place. So now we have another tragedy. Like...why did the guy have to be drunk out of his mind? Just bad luck. Picked a bad night to pound entire bottles of liquor and show off his air rifle...