Police Dispatch During Shootings in Dallas and other police topics

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

I completely 100% agree with that and I don't have a problem with the BLM movement because I think the vast majority of them have a valid complaint and are trying to accomplish their goal peacefully.

 

My point is, why are so many white people all upset about the BLM movement instead of demanding white people not to be shot too?

 

In other words, should white people only be upset and demonstrate against it if at some point white people are shot disproportionately to blacks?

You mean like the protests for Dylan Noble?

 

That is a bad situation there too. Need to wait for full release of dash cam to gain full wisdom. I however heard that he made some mention that he was sick of his life, and kind of provoked the officers to shoot him?

 

I heard that, too. The family denies that he would have said that, but what else are they going to say? If that's true or untrue, they're still going to say something like that.

 

"Suicide by cop" is a real thing, a real problem cops face every day. It's a chickensh#t way out of life, and scars the cop who does the shooting. It's BS to put a cop (or anyone) in that position.

 

 

Knapp, just seen this release regarding Noble, FYI.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/body-cam-video-released-of-fresno-shooting-725112387697

[knapplc]

There was nothing they could do. Cop, civilian, anyone would have shot that guy. He clearly intended for them to shoot him, and was bluffing that he had a gun.

 

So now those officers have to live with that. That's just a cowardly act on his part (Noble's).

[TAKODA]

 

BRI, as a member of the law enforcement community, what is your perspective on necessary actions for gun control? Do you think gun control and mental illness issues need to be addressed together? What about how our current gun control policies affect the threat of radical terrorist groups in America? Finally, it would be worth it if you could contrast your personal views to that of the overall law enforcement community, as appropriate.

 

Holy crap, I threw a lot at you there. Sorry. Feel free to restrict yourself to topics you feel most knowledgable about or feel comfortable discussing.

Holy hell, I feel like I'm at a press conference here!

 

From speaking with other cops or law enforcement as a whole gun control in itself isn't going to solve the problems that we're dealing with as a society. It's mental health, it's access to guns, it's societal issues, it's drugs, etc. It's a very complex issue that needs to be dealt with on multiple levels and that's tricky and I'm not sure how plausible that is either. The logistics involved, as I've thought about it working patrol during the winter when it's slow, will make you eyes cross when you really think about it.

 

Do I think it's as simple as taking folks battling mental illness and locking them up in an institution? No, I don't think it's as simple as that, but there are police shootings that could've been prevented along with mass/active shootings had we had a little better grasp on our mental health issues in this country. Let's be frank, it's a joke and anyone that's around it knows that. We give folks a bottle of pills and tell them, "Here, take these pills, and as long as you take them everything will be just fine!" Of course these folks don't always follow those directions because they don't like the way the pills make them feel or for some other reason. Then they stop taking them and things gets a little hairy with some of these folks, not all. Then who gets called? The police to deal with these issues or some of these folks end up going off the deep end, have access to a gun, and bad things can happen. I'm not saying that this happens with all folks that are battling mental illness, but it does happen to some. I've received extra training in mental illness and it's helped a lot and I can usually identify what issues someone is dealing with and despite what some may think I'm pretty successful getting through to these folks and getting them the help they need without having to escalate the situation into a use of force situation. In my opinion there is a place in our society for mental health institutions on some level and for some mental illnesses, but we're treating our jails and prisons like that's the place for those folks and it's not.

 

Same thing goes for substance abuse situations and how we lock some of those folks up, we need to deal with the problem and help those folks, not hide the problem in a dark hole somewhere. We'll send a person to prison in Iowa for say an OWI 3rd offense which is a felony, but give a convicted felon with violent tendencies probation for assaulting the police, threatening to kill the officers family and rape his wife, and kick out windows on a police car. Talk about a weird process that makes no sense!?

 

Local law enforcement will never agree to a gun grab situation. If the feds were to ban all guns and ask local police to go round up the guns with them, we won't do that and due to the oath we took and that's not our place in our minds. We'll lose our jobs first before we go and knock on doors and take guns, but I don't think we seriously think that's ever going to be asked of us. Nevermind we KNOW that it will turn into a blood bath if this ever happens and we want nothing to do with that.

 

I personally think we need to expand background checks on the gun control front. I don't think we should restrict certain firearms because they look scary or what not because a hunting rifle can kill just as easily as an AR-15. I'm good with needing a special license from the feds for a fully automatic weapon, typically reserved for gun dealers. Give me a Remington 870 Express, 00 buck and an extended magazine tube on your basic hunting shotgun and I'll guarantee you I can kill the same if not more people in the night club in Miami than he did with the AR-15. The shotgun is a devastating weapon when the person behind it is familiar with it, comfortable with it, knows how to run it, and is proficient with it. Put slugs in there and it'll shoot through a cinder block wall. So banning X weapons because of X reason isn't the answer by itself.

 

If we expand background checks and require folks to go through an extensive process annually or semi-annually to keep their permits, including access to their medical records in case they mentioned some mental health issue to their doctor that was documented maybe that'll help with some of the mental health issues, but I'm not completely sure if we're hitting the mark there either. Obviously I don't have all of this process down to the brass tax of things, I'm shooting from the hip some on this topic.

 

This still doesn't/won't help with the issue of illegally obtained weapons. I don't think you'll get those completely off of the streets...............ever.

 

As far as the U.S. being a deterrent to terrorists because of our overall gun ownership and access to guns I think it helps some. I think it helps more in reference to military type attacks by foreign countries to the mainland U.S. "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto WWII Japanese Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of Imperial Japanese Navy. I don't think it completely deters terrorist as we've seen, but I certainly don't think it hurts us either.

 

 

↑ Excellent home defense weapon! +1

 

870, using 2 3/4, 00 buck, (nickel plated shot) @ 20 yards puts a black bear down, with pass through on 7 of the 9.

 

Again, thanks for putting on the uiniform BRI.

[TAKODA]

There was nothing they could do. Cop, civilian, anyone would have shot that guy. He clearly intended for them to shoot him, and was bluffing that he had a gun.

 

So now those officers have to live with that. That's just a cowardly act on his part (Noble's).

 

Tough situation for sure. I do not doubt they felt threatened.

 

I would like to see and hear prior to and further video of this incident however.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

 

OK......trying to think outside the box on this, let me throw this out there.

 

What if our officers didn't carry a gun on their side. They would have a gun in the car just like man officers do now with a shot gun. But, in 99.9% of the encounters they have with the public, they wouldn't have a gun on them.

 

How would that change everything? They would be armed with a club and maybe a taser.

 

I don't think you'd get a lot of support from police officers on that. That sounds extremely dangerous for them.

 

You'll see us turn in our resignations in droves.............

 

BTW.....I fully understand your stance and I probably would have the same stance as you if I were an officer.

 

The thought came up because I'm pretty sure there are quite a few other countries where their police officers do not carry a gun.

 

My thoughts are wondering if there is some other type of "weapon" like a taser that could be carried and it would give the officer the ability to disable a person but it wouldn't be lethal.

 

Something similar to this.

 

 

The Lincoln Police Department already carry tasers as part of their standard equipment (at least, most of the officers I see have them).

 

They are a great option for subduing a suspect with non-lethal force. However, at least in the case of LPD, their tasers shoot two prongs out at their targets and both prongs have to hit in order for it to work. Furthermore, you have to be able to pierce the clothing, which would not always be effective in the colder months.

 

They're situational and not always applicable, but they are a good alternative.

 

I would like technology to keep developing in this area. Maybe the way to go is that the officer carries both a hand gun and some type of non lethal weapon like this. They would have their hand gun for those extremely rare situations where it is the last resort.

 

If we could move to that, it would be interesting to see the statistics on how often the officer really needs the hand gun.

 

I carry my Taser on one side, weak side, and my pistol on the other side, strong side. I carry OC spray on me as well, I don't carry an expandable baton, I have it in my car, it makes too much noise when I walk around. Plus it looks terrible when you have to use it, looks like you're beating the hell out of someone even though you may be using it in the correct manner. A majority of officers carry a Taser anymore or at least have several on their shift somewhere. We also carry a less lethal shotgun in our vehicle in case we have to use that, we've done that before.

[JJ Husker]

I personally think we need to expand background checks on the gun control front. I don't think we should restrict certain firearms because they look scary or what not because a hunting rifle can kill just as easily as an AR-15. I'm good with needing a special license from the feds for a fully automatic weapon, typically reserved for gun dealers. Give me a Remington 870 Express, 00 buck and an extended magazine tube on your basic hunting shotgun and I'll guarantee you I can kill the same if not more people in the night club in Miami than he did with the AR-15. The shotgun is a devastating weapon when the person behind it is familiar with it, comfortable with it, knows how to run it, and is proficient with it. Put slugs in there and it'll shoot through a cinder block wall. So banning X weapons because of X reason isn't the answer by itself.

I agree with this. The biggest key is to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And I say "try" because some criminals will always find a way to have a gun, even if they have to manufacture it themselves. The genie is out of the bottle on guns, has been for a long time, and banning certain weapons will only help assure that law abiding citizens won't have them. I think it a much better approach to expand background checks, and require training and permits/licenses. Still won't eliminate all problems but nothing will.

 

As far as your comments on a shotgun....that is what I use (or rather have in place to use if needed) for home defense. I'm maybe not that overly familiar with the shotgun but I do know I could take down an intruder with it without having to be as accurate as a handgun or rifle would require. The extra shells in the magazine ought be enough to make sure he/they never get up again too. New carpet and paint is always welcomed....

[JJ Husker]

There was nothing they could do. Cop, civilian, anyone would have shot that guy. He clearly intended for them to shoot him, and was bluffing that he had a gun.

 

So now those officers have to live with that. That's just a cowardly act on his part (Noble's).

I agree. Watched that a few times and could not picture myself doing anything other than exactly what they did. It sucks that cops have to do that so often. It can't be easy to kill someone even when it's justified but, there really is no other option in that circumstance.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

I personally think we need to expand background checks on the gun control front. I don't think we should restrict certain firearms because they look scary or what not because a hunting rifle can kill just as easily as an AR-15. I'm good with needing a special license from the feds for a fully automatic weapon, typically reserved for gun dealers. Give me a Remington 870 Express, 00 buck and an extended magazine tube on your basic hunting shotgun and I'll guarantee you I can kill the same if not more people in the night club in Miami than he did with the AR-15. The shotgun is a devastating weapon when the person behind it is familiar with it, comfortable with it, knows how to run it, and is proficient with it. Put slugs in there and it'll shoot through a cinder block wall. So banning X weapons because of X reason isn't the answer by itself.

I agree with this. The biggest key is to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And I say "try" because some criminals will always find a way to have a gun, even if they have to manufacture it themselves. The genie is out of the bottle on guns, has been for a long time, and banning certain weapons will only help assure that law abiding citizens won't have them. I think it a much better approach to expand background checks, and require training and permits/licenses. Still won't eliminate all problems but nothing will.

 

As far as your comments on a shotgun....that is what I use (or rather have in place to use if needed) for home defense. I'm maybe not that overly familiar with the shotgun but I do know I could take down an intruder with it without having to be as accurate as a handgun or rifle would require. The extra shells in the magazine ought be enough to make sure he/they never get up again too. New carpet and paint is always welcomed....

 

I agree on the requirements for training in reference to permit to carry. It's reckless not to require some sort of legitimate firearms training before you get one. I'd also like to see a permit to purchase put in place for all weapons, not just handguns and a few other weapons. Same process applies to those because a person can go and buy a shotgun today with no permit to purchase, stop taking their meds or decide "today's the day" and we've got a problem. I think those things will help, doing nothing certainly isn't the answer in reference to these problems. I'd also like to see a national permit to carry to simplify that process as well. I know a lot of states will accept other states permits, but it would be easier just to do a national permit. Of course some states still wouldn't allow it unfortunately.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

There was nothing they could do. Cop, civilian, anyone would have shot that guy. He clearly intended for them to shoot him, and was bluffing that he had a gun.

 

So now those officers have to live with that. That's just a cowardly act on his part (Noble's).

I know a former officer that got involved in the same situation. Shot the guy center mass with a shotgun then had to administer first aid to the guy to save his life. He saved the guys life and was dragged through 3 years of hell in the courts before he was found to be right both criminally and civilly. He got out of law enforcement because of that because he didn't want to go through any of that again. Sucks when you get put in that position!

[Enhance]

On the mental health issue, I saw some statistics this week that LPD has responded to more than 1,400 mental health crises calls in 2016 so far. It's on pace to surpass last year's total by a few hundred.

 

According to a former police chief, a significant portion of those calls are non-emergency. For example, a child at a therapist who refuses to talk to the therapist but won't go home to parents. So, they call police to fix the issue, kind of like an 'EASY' button, when a police officer is probably not the best option for handling that situation.

 

A disproportionate number of people who need mental health care are either uninsured or homeless, as well.

 

We need to find ways to get to people earlier and more effectively in order to help police.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

BRI, as a member of the law enforcement community, what is your perspective on necessary actions for gun control? Do you think gun control and mental illness issues need to be addressed together? What about how our current gun control policies affect the threat of radical terrorist groups in America? Finally, it would be worth it if you could contrast your personal views to that of the overall law enforcement community, as appropriate.

 

Holy crap, I threw a lot at you there. Sorry. Feel free to restrict yourself to topics you feel most knowledgable about or feel comfortable discussing.

Holy hell, I feel like I'm at a press conference here!

 

From speaking with other cops or law enforcement as a whole gun control in itself isn't going to solve the problems that we're dealing with as a society. It's mental health, it's access to guns, it's societal issues, it's drugs, etc. It's a very complex issue that needs to be dealt with on multiple levels and that's tricky and I'm not sure how plausible that is either. The logistics involved, as I've thought about it working patrol during the winter when it's slow, will make you eyes cross when you really think about it.

 

Do I think it's as simple as taking folks battling mental illness and locking them up in an institution? No, I don't think it's as simple as that, but there are police shootings that could've been prevented along with mass/active shootings had we had a little better grasp on our mental health issues in this country. Let's be frank, it's a joke and anyone that's around it knows that. We give folks a bottle of pills and tell them, "Here, take these pills, and as long as you take them everything will be just fine!" Of course these folks don't always follow those directions because they don't like the way the pills make them feel or for some other reason. Then they stop taking them and things gets a little hairy with some of these folks, not all. Then who gets called? The police to deal with these issues or some of these folks end up going off the deep end, have access to a gun, and bad things can happen. I'm not saying that this happens with all folks that are battling mental illness, but it does happen to some. I've received extra training in mental illness and it's helped a lot and I can usually identify what issues someone is dealing with and despite what some may think I'm pretty successful getting through to these folks and getting them the help they need without having to escalate the situation into a use of force situation. In my opinion there is a place in our society for mental health institutions on some level and for some mental illnesses, but we're treating our jails and prisons like that's the place for those folks and it's not.

 

Same thing goes for substance abuse situations and how we lock some of those folks up, we need to deal with the problem and help those folks, not hide the problem in a dark hole somewhere. We'll send a person to prison in Iowa for say an OWI 3rd offense which is a felony, but give a convicted felon with violent tendencies probation for assaulting the police, threatening to kill the officers family and rape his wife, and kick out windows on a police car. Talk about a weird process that makes no sense!?

 

Local law enforcement will never agree to a gun grab situation. If the feds were to ban all guns and ask local police to go round up the guns with them, we won't do that and due to the oath we took and that's not our place in our minds. We'll lose our jobs first before we go and knock on doors and take guns, but I don't think we seriously think that's ever going to be asked of us. Nevermind we KNOW that it will turn into a blood bath if this ever happens and we want nothing to do with that.

 

I personally think we need to expand background checks on the gun control front. I don't think we should restrict certain firearms because they look scary or what not because a hunting rifle can kill just as easily as an AR-15. I'm good with needing a special license from the feds for a fully automatic weapon, typically reserved for gun dealers. Give me a Remington 870 Express, 00 buck and an extended magazine tube on your basic hunting shotgun and I'll guarantee you I can kill the same if not more people in the night club in Miami than he did with the AR-15. The shotgun is a devastating weapon when the person behind it is familiar with it, comfortable with it, knows how to run it, and is proficient with it. Put slugs in there and it'll shoot through a cinder block wall. So banning X weapons because of X reason isn't the answer by itself.

 

If we expand background checks and require folks to go through an extensive process annually or semi-annually to keep their permits, including access to their medical records in case they mentioned some mental health issue to their doctor that was documented maybe that'll help with some of the mental health issues, but I'm not completely sure if we're hitting the mark there either. Obviously I don't have all of this process down to the brass tax of things, I'm shooting from the hip some on this topic.

 

This still doesn't/won't help with the issue of illegally obtained weapons. I don't think you'll get those completely off of the streets...............ever.

 

As far as the U.S. being a deterrent to terrorists because of our overall gun ownership and access to guns I think it helps some. I think it helps more in reference to military type attacks by foreign countries to the mainland U.S. "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto WWII Japanese Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of Imperial Japanese Navy. I don't think it completely deters terrorist as we've seen, but I certainly don't think it hurts us either.

Thanks, BRI. I have to agree with basically everything you said. There are some types of weaponry that do not seem reasonable for civilians to possess, but the biggest danger is the mind of someone with ill intent. It seems responsible to keep guns out of the hands of these people, and requiring background checks and issuing restrictions on the sale of fire arms to those with mental health issue (at least those that result in producing a danger to themselves or others) and on a terrorist watch list are good strategies that would not impede civil rights of the general public. I also like the idea that those with a gun permit should pass a compentancy check annually or in the same renew period of getting a driver's license.

[Red Dead Redemption]

yeah, disarming cops is a wonderful idea...why should they be armed for routine stops?

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

[TAKODA]

 

Good example of how difficult it is to make the right decision, however, we need to put into context, that those involved knew full well they were not in any real danger while this experiment was being done. Now, put real ammo and real life situation into play, and all of the sudden you get the emotions that can escalate things 100 fold.