4 ms·

There were a bunch of police who’d just done training on stopping an active shooter and simply refused to follow the training. What is the point of reactive mea

There were a bunch of police who’d just done training on stopping an active shooter and simply refused to follow the training. What is the point of reactive measures if they are flat-out disregarded? In this example, this drone could be deployed but it could not attack the shooter, or it could attack the kids instead. Considering that everyone would reject any liability just like the Uvalde PD has done, it would not help at all.

endisneigh 4y ago
I don’t disagree. What are some alternatives?
- Teever 4y ago
  Have you considered looking abroad to see how other nations do it?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    I have - other countries don’t seem particularly better at stopping active shooters. What they’re better at is preventing them, but the tech in the article is about stopping them. Obviously making it harder to get guns will prevent them, but I’m talking and asking about stopping an engaged active shooter.
    - logseman 4y ago
      The entire point that is being sidelined by that is an active shooter is 1) armed 2) surrounded by unarmed people 3) has the element of surprise to their side Even a single soldier that catches the enemy by surprise while they’re resting or asleep is going to make an absolute carnage. This is known in the military since warfare is a thing and has been used by many successful generals. It must not get to the point of an active shooter being on the loose, and somehow in other countries it manages to be a very strange occurrence, where the guns have been smuggled by a foreign enemy power, the gunners have been indoctrinated by whatever cult got their turn today, etc. You also managed to skirt the other part that has been mentioned. If they are ever deployed, these toys will eventually kill the wrong person, which could be a child. Given that all you are interested about is in stopping the active shooter, will you deem this death justified, and agree that there is no liability because “the code did it”?
    - drivingmenuts 4y ago
      Perhaps having police that are trained to respond, and actually required to respond. One major roadblock to stopping active shooters is that American police are not actually required, by law, to protect the public.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

endisneigh 4y ago

I don’t disagree. What are some alternatives?

Teever 4y ago
Have you considered looking abroad to see how other nations do it?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  I have - other countries don’t seem particularly better at stopping active shooters. What they’re better at is preventing them, but the tech in the article is about stopping them. Obviously making it harder to get guns will prevent them, but I’m talking and asking about stopping an engaged active shooter.
  - logseman 4y ago
    The entire point that is being sidelined by that is an active shooter is 1) armed 2) surrounded by unarmed people 3) has the element of surprise to their side Even a single soldier that catches the enemy by surprise while they’re resting or asleep is going to make an absolute carnage. This is known in the military since warfare is a thing and has been used by many successful generals. It must not get to the point of an active shooter being on the loose, and somehow in other countries it manages to be a very strange occurrence, where the guns have been smuggled by a foreign enemy power, the gunners have been indoctrinated by whatever cult got their turn today, etc. You also managed to skirt the other part that has been mentioned. If they are ever deployed, these toys will eventually kill the wrong person, which could be a child. Given that all you are interested about is in stopping the active shooter, will you deem this death justified, and agree that there is no liability because “the code did it”?
  - drivingmenuts 4y ago
    Perhaps having police that are trained to respond, and actually required to respond. One major roadblock to stopping active shooters is that American police are not actually required, by law, to protect the public.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]