Hypothetically speaking

[poopgiggle]

I'm about as liberal as it gets on policing issues, but I can understand an officer being unnerved by seeing armed people when responding to a home intrusion call. wufee's response seems perfectly reasonable.

So what if the one guy is ex-SWAT? Unless there's some kind of secret police hand signal that he threw up when the officer rolled up, the responding officer had no way to know who that guy was or what he did.

I don't care if the guy has a Nobel Peace Prize, a Medal of Honor, and will grant you three wishes if you rub his belly. There's no way to know that going in.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I would have called Super RN....

 

[Mr10mm]

I would have called Super RN....

He is back!

I found some more good stuff. Hold on I will find it.

 

[Republicanhack]

The poll is not about the proper response to the call, the officer was absolutely correct in the way he responded to the call. The poll is about what should have been done AFTER everyone was confirmed to be good morally sound people who had a right to be there in the first place and posed no threat to the officer and his safety and when the officer felt at ease enough to turn his back on 3 people who were not in cuffs.

If he was worried about an ambush then he was a moron for not waiting until he had backup before he even made contact. But he wasn't worried about an ambush because he was notified by dispatch that the homeowner was outside waiting on him.

 

[ch-47 mech]

Ok lets say an officer is arriving on the scene of a possible home intruder to see 3 men outside watching the house, 2 with long guns and one with his gun concealed from view so the officer doesn't know he is armed, upon contact he instructs the men with long guns to lay down their weapons and they comply and the 3rd man with hands in clear view instructs the officer that his weapon is in his waistband and the officer removes and secures the thirds weapon. After the 3 men produce ID and the officer confirms that they do in fact have a right to be there and no one has a warrant or anything against him what would be the proper thing for the officer to do?

I voted to release them because there's no need to keep them detained after verifying they were not the criminals.

 

[HMFIC]

I have to know if there was a bad guy inside and what came of that before I answer.

Need all the information please.

 

[Republicanhack]

I have to know if there was a bad guy inside and what came of that before I answer.

Need all the information please.

What would that have to do with the way the officer would handle the 3 guys?

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

I'm not sure this thread should be about the officer. It should be about the homeowner and the neighbors. What should they have done? If the homeowner/neighbors weren't in immediate danger from the BG, they should have went to the neighbors house, called the police, and let them handle it. What are you going to accomplish by standing outside with guns? Are you going to shoot the BG as he tries to escape? Once the BG is outside and running away, you'd probably have a hard time convincing a jury that your life was in danger.

 

[Traxxis]

What would that have to do with the way the officer would handle the 3 guys?

What did he do that has you so pissed off?

Trust me, dispatch seldom EVER fills the officer in on all the information. Going to a burglary call and showing up and seeing two people outside the house with guns bigger than what is at my immediate disposal is a no go. I would very cautiously approach and instruct them to lay their weapons down, and this would NOT be the time to tell me that: A) it's your house B) you have your CCW so it's "okay" C) anything... fact of the matter is, the most immediate threat is three armed individuals.

After figuring out what is going on, I personally (granted it depends on the totality of the circumstances) tell the three men to stay at the back of my vehicle (preferably with another officer), search the house, then come back out and talk. The LAST thing I would want them doing is standing outside ready to shoot the first person that walks through the door, whether they're a bad guy or not.

Would I run the guns? Probably not. Do I blame an officer that does? Nope.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[Republicanhack]

I'm not sure this thread should be about the officer. It should be about the homeowner and the neighbors. What should they have done? If the homeowner/neighbors weren't in immediate danger from the BG, they should have went to the neighbors house, called the police, and let them handle it. What are you going to accomplish by standing outside with guns? Are you going to shoot the BG as he tries to escape? Once the BG is outside and running away, you'd probably have a hard time convincing a jury that your life was in danger.

Then start a thread about that, this thread is a question about, well we all know what the thread is about.

One good thing the homeowner and neighbors could have done is held the guy until the police showed up, the homeowner in question has alot of guns so the likelyhood of the intruder being armed when he left would be very good and there are alot of children in the area so the guy could have posed a threat to them.

Why would you think that the only option would be to shoot the intruder?
Is it impossible to detain him until the police arrive?
Why would you assume that every burglar is going to automatically run away and not be a threat?
What makes you think that the police are going to be able to protect everyone all the time?
Should the homeowner just went ahead about his business maybe ran some errands while he waited on the police?

I don't see what is so complicated about this question and poll.