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.

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?

 djones520 wrote:
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.

The cops were wrong about the weapon and their response caused a needless death. But, lets not hold them accountable. Their years of experience on the matter led them to believe he did have a weapon. But, those years of experience were still wrong.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?

There is a difference between the military and police. But the concept of escalation of force is universal. You try to stay as low on the ladder as possible, but if forced to, you jump right to the top. As I've said again and again in here. The police did not just start spraying bullets. They tried staying low on that ladder. If their intent was just to kill the man, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. They were following the man at 10-15 feet. It is damn near impossible to miss someone at that range. They could have opened fire at any point. It was not until the man turned, that they did so. Why is that? I already stated why, and won't again.

And again, it doesn't matter if the other officers could have or not. When faced with the prospect of deadly force, you cannot just rely on someone else to take care of the problem. All three of the saw a threat, all three acted on it.

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Did the man have opportunity? Yes.

Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.

Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.

Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.

I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.

If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?

As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.

The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.

Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.

Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.

Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.

Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.

None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.

None that we know of. The eyewitness testimony was sketchy at best, and all that's listed is that they had an altercation. Either one could have started the fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.

The cops were wrong about the weapon and their response caused a needless death. But, lets not hold them accountable. Their years of experience on the matter led them to believe he did have a weapon. But, those years of experience were still wrong.....

Interview cops who have fired in the line of duty and killed someone, especially those in self defense. It's not something you just do, or do for fun or without serious consideration. Killing another human being is a serious thing, and most cops suffer emotional damage from it.

And what if those years of experience were right, they had waited, and two officers had died? Yeah, let's not hold the criminal accountable for attacking officers.

Seriously. Police should be charged and punished when they're in the wrong, but stop band wagoning on the police bashing.

Rule 1 mate, motyak

It's always interesting to see the divergence in opinion between those who have under gone the relevant training, and those who have not.

cleaning up after above edit
I do know my way around weapons. Like most Russian kids, I have received quite a bit of training. Granted, this is with an AK, not a pistol, but I still know that when you have a gun ready and loaded, aimed at somebodies center of mass, you will always be faster in shooting than someone who still has to pull a gun from his waistband and aim. The officers did have more than enough time and possibility to see whether the suspect was armed or not.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It's always interesting to see the divergence in opinion between those who have under gone the relevant training, and those who have not.

This, pretty much. All of those discussions have three parties:

a) Hindsight Heroes: Has zero experience with situations like these, can only empathize with the victim, wants the discussion to be as emotional as possible

b) Neutral Nobody: Can be in favor or one side or the other, participates by sharing his personal opinion and tries to see both sides

c) Experience Expert: Experts trained on how to properly act in such situations with actual experience on the matter

Being part of c), I just hang back in situations like these. You can't argue with a), so I'll just stick to b) or just keep out. I can just facepalm at the downright stupid comments made by some hindsight heroes in here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.

But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.

But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...

Quick! Attempt to undermine his argument by calling him an armchair expert! That will show the rest of the internet that he is a fool! So, you are telling me that I should not question the Police and their actions?

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?

There is a difference between the military and police. But the concept of escalation of force is universal. You try to stay as low on the ladder as possible, but if forced to, you jump right to the top. As I've said again and again in here. The police did not just start spraying bullets. They tried staying low on that ladder. If their intent was just to kill the man, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. They were following the man at 10-15 feet. It is damn near impossible to miss someone at that range. They could have opened fire at any point. It was not until the man turned, that they did so. Why is that? I already stated why, and won't again.

And again, it doesn't matter if the other officers could have or not. When faced with the prospect of deadly force, you cannot just rely on someone else to take care of the problem. All three of the saw a threat, all three acted on it.

Oh, is that why they used a Tazer before? According to you, they should have just gone straight to lethal force! So I mean, that is incorrect. These cops have already violated Escalation of Force, according to you. Should they not have been forced to jump to deadly force when presented with deadly force? (Rocks you can move out of the way of)

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.

But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...

Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy. I am not saying all do that, just that under stress, some of them could fall back to their military training which makes them to be more trigger happy.
Escalation of force is (or shouldn't) be the same in a warzone and in peacetime. There is a reason why the US has so much more of this kind of accidents than other countries, and it is not the easy availability of weapons. Weapons are common and easy to come by in most of Europe as well, yet we do not see this kind of accident nearly as often. As far as I can see, the US police is too trigger-happy and focusses too much on force and escalation rather than de-escalation when compared to European police forces.
And when I see US police equipment and them driving around in heavily armoured vehicles in small provincial towns I really start too think the US police is more of a military force rather than a police force. Police officers should only use lethal force as a very, very last resort when their lifes are clearly under immediate threat. In some countries, the police does not even carry lethal weapons. Just think about that.

Three pages of feeding and trolls are not full?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.

But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...

Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy. I am not saying all do that, just that under stress, some of them could fall back to their military training which makes them to be more trigger happy.
Escalation of force is (or shouldn't) be the same in a warzone and in peacetime. There is a reason why the US has so much more of this kind of accidents than other countries, and it is not the easy availability of weapons. Weapons are common and easy to come by in most of Europe as well, yet we do not see this kind of accident nearly as often. As far as I can see, the US police is too trigger-happy and focusses too much on force and escalation rather than de-escalation when compared to European police forces.
And when I see US police equipment and them driving around in heavily armoured vehicles in small provincial towns I really start too think the US police is more of a military force rather than a police force. Police officers should only use lethal force as a very, very last resort when their lifes are clearly under immediate threat. In some countries, the police does not even carry lethal weapons. Just think about that.

Really? England has one of the highest stabbing incidents of any country. Also, what "heavily armed vehicles" are you referring to? Most police short of a SWAT team drive standard cars with little armaments other than their sidearm.

If the US isn't allowed to police the world, shouldn't Europe not to be allowed to look down their nose at the US?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.

Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.

Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.

The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue

Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.

Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.

But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...

Quick! Attempt to undermine his argument by calling him an armchair expert! That will show the rest of the internet that he is a fool! So, you are telling me that I should not question the Police and their actions?

No, he's saying that if you're allowed to discredit people with miltary experience as non-related, they're allowed to discredit your experience as well. Or are you actually a police officer?

MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

Again. What? I live in a pretty large town and have never seen one of these. The armored bank cars are the most common "heavily armored" vehicles.

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

They aren't even heavily armored, really. They're a light armored vehicle with enhanced protection from IEDs and mines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

Again. What? I live in a pretty large town and have never seen one of these. The armored bank cars are the most common "heavily armored" vehicles.

I also keep hearing about them showing up in "small provincial towns." As someone who spends a lot of time in "small provincial towns," I've never seen one in such a place.

 Hordini wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

They aren't even heavily armored, really. They're a light armored vehicle with enhanced protection from IEDs and mines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

Again. What? I live in a pretty large town and have never seen one of these. The armored bank cars are the most common "heavily armored" vehicles.

I also keep hearing about them showing up in "small provincial towns." As someone who spends a lot of time in "small provincial towns," I've never seen one in such a place.

In terms of police use, they are heavily armored. An MRAP will shrug off any small arms. Unless dedicated anti-armor weapons are being used, nothing is getting through. For military purposes, yeah, they aren't on the scale of Strykers/Bradley's/Abrams/etc...

I see hundreds of them every day... but that may have something to do with wear I live...

Well, there are about 17,000 independent police departments across the USA. Some of them have MRAPs, but not too many. The ones that do have them, don't exactly make much use of them. They mostly sit in the garage in the off chance they might be needed.

What some people might not understand is that there are is lot of prior military equipment that gets handed off to local agencies. I worked search and rescue for five or six years, and the police are an integral part of that. Our sheriffs department had several Humvees, woodland camo and all, that they'd picked up at some point. Go and protest the militarization of police forces all you want, but those Humvees just sat there in the vehicle fleet. I'm sure they got uses on occasion, but the fact that our local police had military equipment meant jack all.

A few months ago, there was some big news stories in the area when UC Davis students protested the Davis PD acquiring an MRAP. The city council ordered the police department to get rid of it. The chief of police just kind of shrugged and said "whatever, we just picked it up because it was too good of a deal to turn down", and sold it to another neighboring PD.

 djones520 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.

They aren't even heavily armored, really. They're a light armored vehicle with enhanced protection from IEDs and mines.

In terms of police use, they are heavily armored. An MRAP will shrug off any small arms. Unless dedicated anti-armor weapons are being used, nothing is getting through. For military purposes, yeah, they aren't on the scale of Strykers/Bradley's/Abrams/etc..

That's fair. I'll agree that within the continuum of vehicles used by police, they would be considered heavily armored.

Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles. MRAPs were designed to work on rough roads out in Iraq and Afghanistan. If a PD ever needed to send SWAT up to a remote cabin, an MRAP could do it while an armored van probably couldn't. Unless you've got some sort of plan to try and kill some police officers, the occasional use of MRAPs has about zero effect on you.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

 DarkLink wrote:
Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.

On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

I would argue that military ROE tends to actually be stricter than police escalation of force.

Something that also needs to be considered is that the military has escalation of force procedures stateside as well as in-country, and they are not necessarily the same. If you think that there is only one way the military uses escalation of force, and that it is restricted to "combat escalation they would use in an active warzone," you are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

 DarkLink wrote:
Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.

On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.

Up-armored HMMVs (which are not MRAPs) are more prone to rollovers because they are heavier due to more armor and upgraded suspension kits that are different than what the vehicle was designed for originally. This doesn't necessarily hold true for MRAPs, of which there are many different designs, all of which were designed from the ground up with more protection in mind. Some MRAPs might be predisposed to rollovers but I don't think that's the case for all of them. I see that you noted "depending on model," I just wanted to provide a bit more information.

First:
The international sign of guns drawn and pointed at you should be listened to, guns pointed at you means stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, because you're about to be shot. No understanding of English required.


Second:
Tasers were used and didn't work, dude keeps throwing rocks and turns them on the police. Softball sized? That has potential to break somebodies skull or cause other life threatening injuries. Dude was engaging in behavior that was putting the public directly at risk, continue to risk public and officers to wait for Spanish speaking back up? Not needed, see first point above, guns pointed at you is international for "stop immediately".


Third:
Play stupid games win stupid prizes, His derp was rewarded.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

 DarkLink wrote:
Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.

On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.

They really aren't. I'd take an uparmored HMWWV over an MRAP if I'm needing to go off-roading, and need protection. MRAP's aren't used that much in Afghanistan because of how unsteady they are. Very prone to rolling over. Granted, they are much easier to get out of them a hummer when it goes onto its side.

Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.

I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.

Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.

@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.

Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.

@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.

Unarmored aren't. Uparmored are.

Neither are...never even seen one in country anywhere other then on Bagram or with AnA.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, he couldn't he turning around to surrender.

Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.

I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.

Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.

 djones520 wrote:
Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.

My mistake, that makes sense, most MRAPs probably are more top heavy. I think I was remembering something I heard years ago when they were transitioning from unarmored HMMVs to the up-armored HMMVs (prior to MRAPs being so widespread) that the up-armored version had problems with flipping that the original unarmored variant didn't have due to the change in weight distribution.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.

I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.

Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?

... Interesting. Normally I'd say well, I screwed up trimming the quote, but in this case, you weren't even part of the quote tree that was in; so I truly have no idea how that was attributed to you and not Iron Captain. In any event, my apologies for the error.