Exsniper, my recommendation is to back out of this dialogue. I've learned long ago, that these types of discussions fall in the same category as talking politics and religion. Most people will never understand that taking a black and white position on safsty and not deviating from policy and training, is not a display of arrogance and excess ego. Besides, since R'hack has probably had more training than you, let him deal with the questions and comments.
Exsniper, my recommendation is to back out of this dialogue. I've learned long ago, that these types of discussions fall in the same category as talking politics and religion. Most people will never understand that taking a black and white position on safsty and not deviating from policy and training, is not a display of arrogance and excess ego. Besides, since R'hack has probably had more training than you, let him deal with the questions and comments.
Really? When did I get angry about someone responding to the original post and the selection of the poll? I haven't gotten angry but I did ask a specific question and hardly anyone stayed on topic. Care to back up that absurd statement?
Most of us did stay on topic. You didn't provide enough detail on the scenario. Just because we didn't simply answer the question and give the response you wanted to hear doesn't mean we were "off-topic".
Well it was a simple question to answer, yes alot of people did stay on topic but there were no more details needed to answer the poll. There was no particular answer I was looking for other than the one in the poll. If the poll had been answered and the reason behind ones view of it was presented all would be well. The poll didn't ask what anyones response to the call would have been or how anyone would have reacted to the 3 men in question, ONLY the proper procedure in dealing with the 3 mens weapons after everything was cleared and noone was a threat and it was known that they never were a threat.
One more off-topic observation from a civilian perspective.
The three men know that the police have been dispatched to a
crime scene. They are obviously armed.
Shouldn't the civilians have enough common sense to know that the police will view this as a problematic situation?
Wouldn't it change the whole dynamic if the civilians just put their guns down before the police arrive?
Common sense, that's a whole nother can o worms.
The three men know that the police have been dispatched to a
crime scene. They are obviously armed.
Shouldn't the civilians have enough common sense to know that the police will view this as a problematic situation?
Wouldn't it change the whole dynamic if the civilians just put their guns down before the police arrive?
Common sense, that's a whole nother can o worms.
Well the totality of circumstances was that the cops cleared everyone involved and deemed that none of the 3 was in the wrong and they handled the situation professionally and in a very friendly manner.
I guess the poll should have been more simple.
How about this? Should the police run the numbers every time they come in contact with a civilian that is armed? Better?
I honestly don't see why this has been so over complicated. It's like asking about helping someone change a flat, it doesn't matter how the flat happened, what type of vehicle, what kind of clothes the people were wearing or what kind of tires were on the vehicle. The question is, should someone help change a strangers flat? See how simple that is? This is exactly the same.
Again, the officers response was not in question, his attitude wasn't in question, and his professionalism wasn't in question. The only thing in question is what is the proper thing to do in that type of situation regarding the guns, not the proper response to the call, not proper tactics for approaching the scene, not someones haircut or clothing or anything else. Just if the normal procedure for dealing with armed citizens is to run the numbers.
I guess the poll should have been more simple.
How about this? Should the police run the numbers every time they come in contact with a civilian that is armed? Better?
I honestly don't see why this has been so over complicated. It's like asking about helping someone change a flat, it doesn't matter how the flat happened, what type of vehicle, what kind of clothes the people were wearing or what kind of tires were on the vehicle. The question is, should someone help change a strangers flat? See how simple that is? This is exactly the same.
Again, the officers response was not in question, his attitude wasn't in question, and his professionalism wasn't in question. The only thing in question is what is the proper thing to do in that type of situation regarding the guns, not the proper response to the call, not proper tactics for approaching the scene, not someones haircut or clothing or anything else. Just if the normal procedure for dealing with armed citizens is to run the numbers.
Maybe if you would have given all the details and the story in your original post instead of eeking them out over a few posts after people start posting. Give all the details up front and you can expect better answers. Giving a little bit of the story, let people answer, then giving more details is not the way to get good answers out of the gate. You caused the problem on this one!
Similar threads
