Vegas event gets stranger

[26 Inf]

I'm struggling with the right word for this - hypocrisy and double-standard are close, but not quite on. Firefighters are also civilians, and on a daily basis they risk their lives to save strangers. The injury and death rate for firefighters is FAR above that for police anywhere in the US.

First let me start by saying that I believe the officer in this case, had an ethical responsibility to close with the shooter. If he was ordered to hold his position, I think he should have reflected on what he knew and what the person telling him to hold knew, and make a decision from that perspective.

The fact is, though, that despite what we might say in the squad room, to ourselves and to others, may differ when the rubber meets the road. You can't be absolutely sure until you've experienced the situation and come out the other end. In that respect, each situation is a test, and you can never be absolutely certain, until you have, in fact performed.

IMO there has been a disturbing trend on the part of law enforcement trainers to emphasize risk avoidance at the expense of ethical and moral issues, but I know I'm part of a small group that holds this perspective.

In terms of the firefighter death and injury stats, judging from this website: https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/firefight...ffset=0&max=10, the stats are padded in comparison to law enforcement officers killed and injured.

The fact is that most firemen, as well as most police officers, will not be seriously injured in the direct line of duty during their career. My grandson is an apprentice electrical lineman, I wish he was doing something safer, like policing, or firefighting.

So let's not get into a peeing contest over the issue.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The fact is, though, that despite what we might say in the squad room, to ourselves and to others, may differ when the rubber meets the road. You can't be absolutely sure until you've experienced the situation and come out the other end. In that respect, each situation is a test, and you can never be absolutely certain, until you have, in fact performed.

Because people are human, yes I understand that. I'm a lot less surprised when a rookie freezes or fails to act than if it's a 10+ year veteran LEO.

Before anyone assumes my point of view, I don't expect LEOs to make suicidal charges into machinegun fire (WW1 style) and I have refrained from commenting on the recent video of the Vegas incident because I don't have all the facts. I do expect a morally decent armed LEO to do some risk/benefit calculation in an active shooter situation, and unless ordered not to, to take a reasonable risk of injury when they have a reasonable chance of saving lives. I'm also aware that in general LE are not legally obligated to do this.

IMO there has been a disturbing trend on the part of law enforcement trainers to emphasize risk avoidance at the expense of ethical and moral issues, but I know I'm part of a small group that holds this perspective.

No disagreement here. The 80's and 90's hype from the gun banners AND the drug warriors would make you think that LEOs were getting killed by the thousands daily, like a replay of Verdun. Reality is that car accidents have long been the greatest risk to LE (as well as many other professions) and the carnage was massively exaggerated for political reasons.

In terms of the firefighter death and injury stats, judging from this website: https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/firefight...ffset=0&max=10, the stats are padded in comparison to law enforcement officers killed and injured.

The fact is that most firemen, as well as most police officers, will not be seriously injured in the direct line of duty during their career. My grandson is an apprentice electrical lineman, I wish he was doing something safer, like policing, or firefighting.

So let's not get into a peeing contest over the issue.

No peeing contest intended. I am not in either line of work, and my comment was focused on the specific commentary from the news article that was quoted in my post, which basically said you can't expect any risk-taking from police because they are civilians - a position that I consider silly and I imagine most here would also. My point is that firefighters, also civilians, take on risk as part of their job. People in other jobs that are not public service and often not high paying (even compared to LE or fire dept.) also take on risks as part of their jobs.

I didn't find the FEMA data easy to use, but here's a 20 year old BLS study with a comparison:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/fat...rs-1992-97.pdf

As of the mid-90s the job-related death rates were closer between LE and fire than I thought. Since that time I think LE death rates have significantly decreased (contrary to news hype) and I simply don't know how firefighter rates have changed. Anyway, it doesn't matter because that's not my point.

[AKDoug]

Firefighters don't run in without being ordered either. In fact, my local L.E. had far more autonomy for individual action than our F.F. guys did when I was a F.F./EMT.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It’s also a civilian on the other end using a gun to shoot unarmed people.

It really seems that the people in the hallway had no direction. A big group think where everyone assumed someone else was going to decide what to do?

[JC5188]

New information and video. To quote the “expert”:

"Police officers are civilians with guns,” he told the Associated Press. “The notion that they can spring into action and take on a mass murderer who is running up the body count is probably something you can't ask.“

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/03...age-shows.html

The political undertone of that quote seems obvious...civilians with guns are not the answer to mass shootings.

The “expert” quoted is former NYPD, and with all due respect to the members of that agency who are competent and “stand-up”, he sounds like a large agency politico that hasn’t a clue. An armed cop shouldn’t be expected to stop an AS? Please....

[BoringGuy45]

New information and video. To quote the “expert”:

"Police officers are civilians with guns,” he told the Associated Press. “The notion that they can spring into action and take on a mass murderer who is running up the body count is probably something you can't ask.“

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/03...age-shows.html

So what would the left prefer we do for policing? The military? A gendarmarie or internal troops? Of course, the next shooting of a black criminal that generates any controversy, and they'll be back to claiming the police are too militarized.

[flenna]

So what would the left prefer we do for policing? The military? A gendarmarie or internal troops? Of course, the next shooting of a black criminal that generates any controversy, and they'll be back to claiming the police are too militarized.

And there is the answer. The Communist Leftists among us want, just like every other communist state, an unarmed citizenry and all police militarized/ federalized and controlled by the central government.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The political undertone of that quote seems obvious...civilians with guns are not the answer to mass shootings.

The “expert” quoted is former NYPD, and with all due respect to the members of that agency who are competent and “stand-up”, he sounds like a large agency politico that hasn’t a clue. An armed cop shouldn’t be expected to stop an AS? Please....

I hadn’t thought of that angle. Of course, how do you have enough of a presence to counter and AS when the response time is measured in minutes?

I think one thing that I’m surprised hasn’t happened is that there haven’t been more organized terror attacks like France/Paris here- now that is a whole other level of activity. Considering that they could buy guns through ‘loop holes’ and use all the ‘right’ guns. Peg all the politics.

[VARIABLE9]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/05/child-...oters-brother/

[MegademiC]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/05/child-...oters-brother/

What a ****ed up family.