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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.

So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.

That just isn't 'well enough' for me.

One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.

As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.

Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.

AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.

Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.

Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?

 djones520 wrote:

You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.

Right but unless that clue was a piece of paper saying "we're going to be in house number X on Y street at Z time" it will take a bit of time to track them down.

Real life isn't like an episode of 24 where you can reposition a satellite in orbit to give you a 1080p picture of the suspects face and exact location you work out based on the reflection of a street sign off their eye.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Even in the Netherlands where police officers do carry sidearms it has proven very difficult to respond to heavily armed criminals (thinking of the Brinks robbery in Amsterdam for the Dutch users). The difference in firepower is just too great in some cases, like this attack.

I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.

Well enough sure. These events are incredibly rare, thankfully. But you can't discount how powerful that video of the officer being shot is going to end up being in the coming weeks, and the debates that are going to follow this event. I would not be surprised if some changes to come about because of this.

Agreed, perhaps there will be a discussion on protection, I can imagine that sidearms will become part of police equipment, but it is difficult to imagine it going further.

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.

So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.

That just isn't 'well enough' for me.

Well that is the problem, do you change the whole system for one attack, something that occurs once in a decade? Even so, this type of attack would not allow enough time to respond for a sufficient number of police officers, as they only started to arrive on the scene as the attackers prepared to leave. Also the mentions of them possesing rpg's makes me wonder what police would need to stop them.

Some more news from the BBC

Police sources have told the AFP news agency that two suspects are in custody in connection with the fatal shooting of a policewoman in Paris this morning. The suspects are reportedly a 52-year-old man and one other.

Its not one attack though. So far we've had at least two attacks involving police, not to mention the armed robbery of the gas station.
I'm not really advocating anything here, just that I would bet there will be pressure to at least increase patrols where heavier weapons are in the vehicles.

PhantomViper wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I agree with Orlanth that the current system seems to do well enough. With SWAT being able to escalate quickly into military support or police special forces, which has happened on one occasion in the Netherlands as well as in Spain to combat terrorists. Now its ongoing in France.

So you and Orlanth are happy with the way the current system worked in this case. Again, we will agree to disagree. The current system allowed the scum to carry out their attack and get away from the scene. It is likely to end up with another shootout at another location putting more folks at risk.

That just isn't 'well enough' for me.

One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.

How would the clues that they left after leaving the scene help the cops in preventing them from leaving the scene?

Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.

Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?

MURICA GUNZ.

Is what I think the general argument here boils down to.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.

Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?

It isn't a hard concept to grasp. Active shooter = suspect right there, identified and able to be engaged. Remotely detonated bomb = no suspect there able to be engaged.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You can't exactly compare these two incidents. With the Boston Bombing there was almost nothing to work off of. These guys left clues that were gathered right away.

Right but unless that clue was a piece of paper saying "we're going to be in house number X on Y street at Z time" it will take a bit of time to track them down.

Real life isn't like an episode of 24 where you can reposition a satellite in orbit to give you a 1080p picture of the suspects face and exact location.

But that ID card gave them a place to start, very quickly. US authorities had nothing more to go off of then attempting to track down video footage, which took quite a while. So you can't really compare these two incidents in how they went down, or how they were resolved.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.

Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.

AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.

Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.

And again, the French could not respond with armed officers in time. They responded with unarmed officers and the armed response did not show up. In the US, the first guys to respond would have been armed. That very well could have made a difference.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.

Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?

The fact that they were actively shooting people in the open has everything to do with it. In this attack, there were police on scene and others with eyes on the suspects DURING THE ATTACK. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, we didn't even know who did it for days. Totally different situation.

The point isn't to throw French law enforcement under the bus, but rather to highlight this incident as a wake up call. Western LEO agencies need to recognize the threat of terrorism and equip officers accordingly. Most of America woke up after the North Hollywood shootout.

 Soladrin wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


One of the cops was armed, there are reports that the terrorists also carried a RPG that they didn't use, so what exact level of armament should the police carry around to handle that type of threat?

Also, it took you guys 4 days to arrest all the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombing. How come your system didn't prevent those terrorists from carrying out their attack, get away from the scene and end up in shoot outs in other locations?

Your system isn't any better than the European one and one could even argue that its a lot worse because it fosters a much heavier militarization of every day police duties so I have no idea where you guys are arguing for it.

You're comparing a bombing to an active shooter situation...totally different animals. We had Reddit neckbeards trolling macro photos of the marathon looking for suspects, and the internet incorrectly accused the wrong guy. In this case, we have video of the shooters committing the act and we have identification that they dropped at the scene.

Again, what does anything of that has to do with how the US police would have prevented the suspects from leaving the scene in the first place?

MURICA GUNZ.

Is what I think the general argument here boils down to.

Oddly enough, that's almost the reason.

1) Cops in the US do respond to armed suspect with regularity.

2) Because of that, everyone is armed. So our cops are at least prepared to face armed resistance, and entertain the possibility of being outgunned. But its better to be outgunned than unarmed. A pistol is still capable of keeping a suspect from approaching you, enough time for better armed responders to come around. Its better than having an "O' " moment right before the bad guy just walks up and empties a bunch of 7.62 into you because you were both unarmed and unarmored.

 Frazzled wrote:


Its not one attack though. So far we've had at least two attacks involving police, not to mention the armed robbery of the gas station.
I'm not really advocating anything here, just that I would bet there will be pressure to at least increase patrols where heavier weapons are in the vehicles.

Well it depends on what occured when the second attack on police officer happened, as there are not many details about that shooting. It depends on circumstances around these events to guess if there will be a call for heavier weapons, although I can certainly see more pressure to equip sidearms as a rule.

 djones520 wrote:

Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.

1) In the LA shooting there were a lot more police on the scene when the shooting actually happened due to prior warning (people seeing them enter the bank with guns).



Hell, there were even news helicopters filming the entire thing. That tells you how much time the police had to respond.

Would they have managed to shut down the situation with only two police officers on the scene due to nobody seeing them enter the bank?

Oh and the two shooters in the North Hollywood shootout had previously robbed an armoured car and two other branches of the Bank of America.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Because the situations are in no way similar? You had guys drop an item set to a timer and walk away at Boston. There was no crime committed at that time to alert the authorities. A better comparison would be the LA shooting already referenced in this thread, and the shooters DID NOT get away in that case.

1) In the LA shooting there were a lot more police on the scene when the shooting actually happened due to prior warning (people seeing them enter the bank with guns).



Would they have managed to shut down the situation with only two police officers on the scene due to nobody seeing them enter the bank?

The officers were the ones who radio'd in the situation. The bank never managed to call police.

2 armed officers were clearly more than sufficient to hold down the situation till backup arrived.

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Is the North Hollywood Shootout though? According to events they got spotted by police before starting the robbery, drastically increasing response time compared with this case.

Regardless, the cops were able to arrive and keep the bad guys from breaking contact. The reporting cops who saw them go in were armed, and positioned themselves to engage the perps when they came out all while awaiting back up.

AND as stated, the cops learned from the situation and changed they way they do business.

Sure but I'm looking at it from this perspective: by the time the robbers left the bank there were already many more police officers present than the couple that were just arriving on the scene in Paris, which they engaged and incapacitated to enable their escape. If the two police officers who spotted the robbers had been the only ones present it might not be difficult to imagine much the same scenario as in Paris.

And again, the French could not respond with armed officers in time. They responded with unarmed officers and the armed response did not show up. In the US, the first guys to respond would have been armed. That very well could have made a difference.

Point granted, but it is all speculation if police with sidearms responding would have helped, as there are cases here in the Netherlands which disprove it, as well as US cases that would prove it.

 CptJake wrote:


The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.

As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.

So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?

And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.

You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...

 Grey Templar wrote:


The officers were the ones who radio'd in the situation. The bank never managed to call police.

2 armed officers were clearly more than sufficient to hold down the situation till backup arrived.

Well I googled it, first result was wikipedia, just says this:

While the robbers were still inside, more patrol and detective units arrived and took strategic positions at all four corners of the bank, effectively surrounding it

More than two armed officers.

PhantomViper wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.

As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.

So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?

And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.

You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...

I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.

Two officers saw the robbers entering the bank and radioed it in.

So when they left, there was a lot more than two officers.

Who saw the gunmen entering the magazines offices?

This was a bit much, I apologize.

PhantomViper wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The Boston Marathon was a bombing. At the time of the blast there was no one for cops to chase, no one firing at innocents to engage. Not a good example for you to use at all.

As for the reports of the RPG, so? Again, any armed cops, even with handguns, would have had a chance to slow or prevent the bad guys from breaking contact until reinforcements could arrive. Your armed response cops DID NOT get there in time to prevent the bad guys breaking contact.

So? You said it yourself, the amount of weapons expertise that these guys demonstrated was pretty good. Do you think that, had the cops in that initial patrol car, had given them a bigger challenge with handguns or even small automatic weapons that they wouldn't have deployed the RPG to end that threat? Why do you imagine that they carried the RPG in the first place?

And there was an armed cop in the building, he was the personal security detail for the editor of the newspaper, he accomplished nothing and neither would the cops in the patrol car if they had had heavier weapons, except probably getting themselves killed as well.

You guys always argue for bigger weapons for the cops to carry around, and then complain endlessly about the militarization of your country's police force. What is it? You can't have both you know...

Militarization has nothing to do with cops carrying around a rifle in the patrol car. It has to do with getting tooled up and kicking in peoples' doors over marijuana sales, when the correct course of action is to wait to nab the guy when he comes out to get a pack of smokes.

Edited.

 djones520 wrote:

I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.

AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


Now you're just trolling.

You are right, message removed, I'm sorry for that comment.

GIGN is military, as far as I am aware.

Edit: And I removed your quote Phantom.

PhantomViper wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.

AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.

The GIGN involved is a military unit.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Two officers saw the robbers entering the bank and radioed it in.

So when they left, there was a lot more than two officers.

Who saw the gunmen entering the magazines offices?

Not to mention that the robbers were in the bank for 15 minutes.

The gunmen were in Charlie Hebdo for between 5 and 10 minutes.

The video that people have seen took place after the main shooting, 180m away from Charlie Hebdo.

 Witzkatz wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I don't complain about it. Notice how the French military is involved in this hunt? It is flat out illegal for the US military to partake in domestic crime issues.

AFAIK no French military are involved in this hunt, both the units mentioned are special police units and not military.

The GIGN involved is a military unit.

According to the French news 1150 soldiers are participating in this operation.

 djones520 wrote:
GIGN is military, as far as I am aware.

The GIGN is the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group, they are part of the National Gendarmerie which is a military force whose sole responsibility is police duties. They are a military force indeed but they aren't part of the military, hence my confusion since we don't really consider them to be "real" military.

We have the same thing over here in our Republican Guard (oh, the laughs we had when these guys were deployed to Iraq), they are military organizations but their sole responsibility is police duty.

 Medium of Death wrote:
If find it incredulous that they've supposedly been following them for hours and have yet to apprehend over even kill them.

I would rather no other cop died, so if they are doing this to maximize their chance to have no casualty (cops or civilian, actually), then I completely support it.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Honestly if French people themselves had had guns these scum would have been dead by now.

People or cops?
I think I can safely say that most people in France would not get guns even if the law allowed for it, and nobody is calling for anything related to gun control. The current “stupid debate raised up by the attack” is on death penalty. Well, at least this is the debate Marine Le Pen wants to raise, apparently.