3 ms·
Let's cut the BS US Military is facing unimaginably more dangerous situations on daily basis yet expected to obey engagements where rule often is do not fire un
by qaq 9y ago
Let's cut the BS US Military is facing unimaginably more dangerous situations on daily basis yet expected to obey engagements where rule often is do not fire unless fired upon. Police is not even in the top 10 list of dangerous professions in US. Situations that in most countries are handled by few police officers in US are handled by paranoid SWAT teams on armored vehicles with assault rifles in full tactical gear.
- tomjakubowski 9y agoPolice gunfights are typically at much closer range than the military’s. Soldiers have more armor and are often already in fortified positions when fired upon. The situations aren’t exactly comparable. Granted, combat troops probably have superior training to police.
- qaq 9y agoI am not advocating for police to have a rule that disallows them to fire first. But police officers should be capable of acting cool under pressure and to use lethal force as a last resort not as a first tool to be used in any situation. I'd favor the rule that police should be filled with Army vets that have actually being on deployments and can keep their cool in an adversarial situations. There are plenty of footage of real firefights both involving police and Military in 80% of situation police looks like they are scared out of their mind and are acting purely out of being in uncontrollable fear which is a horrible situation.
- hyperpape 9y agoThese are SWAT teams. They often have military gear (http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/small-town-cops-get-armored-vehicle-its http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/small-town-cops-get-armore...). If the problem is that they don’t have enough armor, let’s get them it.
- dsego 9y agoThis was across the street. Is that close? You can barely make out the victim in the body cam footage.