4 ms·

I think of a lot of the replies here miss the point of why the police are in "such a hurry". Usually, they believe that the person has hostages that are in immi

I think of a lot of the replies here miss the point of why the police are in "such a hurry". Usually, they believe that the person has hostages that are in imminent danger. I'm sure there is a big component of macho gun buzz, but the fact that they're in a rush is an understandable component of the situation. That's why they don't sit in the car and try to have a chat with the "hostage taker". Obviously, the fact that a random person can essentially order a taxpayer-funded death squad to an arbitrary home is a huge problem, and the people actually making those calls are only a small part of the problem. The fact that these death squads are on the payroll sitting around bored waiting for "action" is an issue too. However, I don't think it's as clear-cut as "don't kill anyone". I'd hate to be the guy with my life threatened while they cautiously announce their presence to my attacker. What's missing is some basic "is there really a hostage situation going on here" step that I don't have the law enforcement knowledge to define.

FireBeyond 9y ago
> but the fact that they're in a rush is an understandable component of the situation Eh. If I'm taking my engine company to a structure fire, we walk, we don't run. If it's a rescue situation, I still do a 360 around the structure to identify additional hazards (while my crew is setting up). That's a situation with people in verified imminent threat to life danger. We work a patient in cardiac arrest. We have checklists. Even with this imminent threat to the patient's life, we will still at pertinent times, stop, and review those lists. Charging in gung ho causes more problems than it solves. If the hostage (if they existed) is going to be dead 10 seconds later, they're probably going to be dead the first time the suspect hears SWAT enter. Similar to a fire or MVA - "you getting there 10 seconds or 30 seconds earlier is going to save a life on so few occasions, if ever, for a much greater risk".
- menacingly 9y ago
  Great take. So, I'm a relatively smart guy who tries to be fair to all parties. I think it's unlikely that I'm the only person who has this misunderstanding about these situations. I wonder how you make this dialog scale? Also, I wonder how much the "another man is the enemy" component adds to it? I wonder if you take the type of person drawn to law enforcement (or even worse, SWAT) and add the lizard brain fuel of "this is a life or death competition with another man", how many of these outcomes are even the result of conscious decisions. How much of the wisdom from those restrictive high speed pursuit laws could be re-applied here? They seem to have figured out that the officer will choose the competitive course in the moment instead of the right course, at too high a cost.
the_chaconne 9y ago
The video of the shooting was released, and you can tell from the video that, with the amount of interaction the police had with the victim, they can't really tell if he's the supposed hostage or the hostage taker. So even in the interest of rescue, the police fucked up big time.
- menacingly 9y ago
  This is a good point. In the interest of a constructive way to go forward, I think a "how can we make this better" process will save more lives than outrage. It's the outrage that the unions are so skilled at skirting.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    This isn't exactly the first time this has happened, is it? We already have many review processes in train and it doesn't seem to be making a whole lot of difference, which is why people are outraged. Here's the problem: you want to draft even more procedures and guidelines and checks and balances (even though we're already neck-deep in bureaucracy), while SWAT teams are guided by a philosophy of 'move fast and break things.' Here's some actionable suggestions we can use right off the bat: * ban police unions * automatic trials for all homicides * police shooters are isolate din protective custody * SWAT team leaders are automatically retired from active duty whenever an innocent person is injured or killed Really I think it's a bit insulting to innocent victims to be 'let's all calm down and have a review process' as if we haven't been through these questions hundreds o times already.
anigbrowl 9y ago
That's why they don't sit in the car and try to have a chat with the "hostage taker". I dunno, it seems to work pretty well in a lot of other contexts. Interestingly enough, in a context where they're very sure about the danger/loss of life, police are just as likely to slow things down. When a terrorist shot up the Pulse Nightclub in Florida and killed a bunch of people police showed up and exchanged fire with him, but then when SWAT arrived they turned it into a hostage situation and spent >3 hours and carried on 3 phone calls with the guy, along with a number of failed entry attempts. Realistically several of the ~50 victims probably died while waiting on the police (I'd have to check all the autopsy reports to be sure, but it'd be pretty unlikely for them all to have died instantly at the time they were shot). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting
borplk 9y ago
You construct a baseless premise that rushing things up is somehow going to result in a better outcome. If anything taking things slowly, establishing communication and negotiating would have better chances. And that seems to be the standard procedure around the world.

FireBeyond 9y ago

> but the fact that they're in a rush is an understandable component of the situation Eh. If I'm taking my engine company to a structure fire, we walk, we don't run. If it's a rescue situation, I still do a 360 around the structure to identify additional hazards (while my crew is setting up). That's a situation with people in verified imminent threat to life danger. We work a patient in cardiac arrest. We have checklists. Even with this imminent threat to the patient's life, we will still at pertinent times, stop, and review those lists. Charging in gung ho causes more problems than it solves. If the hostage (if they existed) is going to be dead 10 seconds later, they're probably going to be dead the first time the suspect hears SWAT enter. Similar to a fire or MVA - "you getting there 10 seconds or 30 seconds earlier is going to save a life on so few occasions, if ever, for a much greater risk".

menacingly 9y ago
Great take. So, I'm a relatively smart guy who tries to be fair to all parties. I think it's unlikely that I'm the only person who has this misunderstanding about these situations. I wonder how you make this dialog scale? Also, I wonder how much the "another man is the enemy" component adds to it? I wonder if you take the type of person drawn to law enforcement (or even worse, SWAT) and add the lizard brain fuel of "this is a life or death competition with another man", how many of these outcomes are even the result of conscious decisions. How much of the wisdom from those restrictive high speed pursuit laws could be re-applied here? They seem to have figured out that the officer will choose the competitive course in the moment instead of the right course, at too high a cost.

the_chaconne 9y ago

The video of the shooting was released, and you can tell from the video that, with the amount of interaction the police had with the victim, they can't really tell if he's the supposed hostage or the hostage taker. So even in the interest of rescue, the police fucked up big time.

menacingly 9y ago
This is a good point. In the interest of a constructive way to go forward, I think a "how can we make this better" process will save more lives than outrage. It's the outrage that the unions are so skilled at skirting.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  This isn't exactly the first time this has happened, is it? We already have many review processes in train and it doesn't seem to be making a whole lot of difference, which is why people are outraged. Here's the problem: you want to draft even more procedures and guidelines and checks and balances (even though we're already neck-deep in bureaucracy), while SWAT teams are guided by a philosophy of 'move fast and break things.' Here's some actionable suggestions we can use right off the bat: * ban police unions * automatic trials for all homicides * police shooters are isolate din protective custody * SWAT team leaders are automatically retired from active duty whenever an innocent person is injured or killed Really I think it's a bit insulting to innocent victims to be 'let's all calm down and have a review process' as if we haven't been through these questions hundreds o times already.

anigbrowl 9y ago

That's why they don't sit in the car and try to have a chat with the "hostage taker". I dunno, it seems to work pretty well in a lot of other contexts. Interestingly enough, in a context where they're very sure about the danger/loss of life, police are just as likely to slow things down. When a terrorist shot up the Pulse Nightclub in Florida and killed a bunch of people police showed up and exchanged fire with him, but then when SWAT arrived they turned it into a hostage situation and spent >3 hours and carried on 3 phone calls with the guy, along with a number of failed entry attempts. Realistically several of the ~50 victims probably died while waiting on the police (I'd have to check all the autopsy reports to be sure, but it'd be pretty unlikely for them all to have died instantly at the time they were shot). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

borplk 9y ago

You construct a baseless premise that rushing things up is somehow going to result in a better outcome. If anything taking things slowly, establishing communication and negotiating would have better chances. And that seems to be the standard procedure around the world.