Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,614
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    Thanks for the clarification, Greg--I can understand where some of the negative reaction comes from, but what you said makes more sense now.

    In general, I think a lot of people see the "I'm going home tonight!" attitude taken so far by some that it results in actions that appear too extreme or just absurd. It's not a debate I'm trying to start here, but just remember that the perception of many does not come from personal experience but is primarily defined by videos they see on YouTube and stories they hear about, absent the whole story and an understanding of the philosophy behind policies and procedures.

    For example, I remember a reaction of incredulity when I saw a segment from a TV show following game wardens in northern California. The two guys approached a hunters' campsite in the woods and basically treated everybody like a felony suspect--come out of the tents with your hands up at gunpoint, patting everybody down, securing every single gun, etc. all to do something simple like checking hunting licenses. It seemed a ridiculous exercise of caution that leads to a very negative perception/attitude toward law enforcement from the people who are treated like that, or who see it happening.

    In contrast, I've seen videos from another TV show following game wardens in Texas where they don't do much besides asking guys to keep their rifles pointed away. I'm sure there's a cultural element involved, but it's that kind of stuff that can have a big impact on public opinion toward law enforcement, and in these days the PR trend is going in a bad direction in many places.
    I would wager that one of these groups has been shot at and the other has not.
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,614
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    Good points, and there's a difference between commanding somebody to get on the floor at gunpoint vs saying "I need you to get down on the floor until it's safe to get up". Sheep are quick to comply and follow when given effective leadership. Sometimes screaming commands is counter-productive. Keeping your brain working helps you analyze and proceed appropriately. If people recognize you as a good guy with a gun, they will generally want to cooperate and do their part to help.
    I prefer 1 word commands. The more simple the command the faster they are to respond and the less confusion about what you want especially with accompanying hand gestures. That's the reason for "Command Spanish" taught to LEOs
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Nichols View Post
    I would wager that one of these groups has been shot at and the other has not.
    All I would say regarding that specific example is that if you aren't comfortable being around good guys with guns, you shouldn't be a cop in the U.S. and you need to get out of your "Us vs Them" bubble. What are you going to do when everybody in Texas is open-carrying during Harvey?

    Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your perspective... I just tend to look at the big picture and analyze the trends. Right now, the trend is bad for cops on both ends of the spectrum. The thugs/BLM types/anarchist types are becoming more bold in their anti-cop activities (including putting words into actions and ambushing/assassinating cops). At the same time, the pro-gun right, traditionally solidly pro-cop, is increasingly concerned about issues of freedom and constitutional principles and is becoming more and more anti-cop.

    If you ever browse the comments on a gun blog site when they post a story about the latest controversial police shooting or other incidents, you might be shocked to see how anti-cop many in the gun community have become. It's a trend that should really concern law enforcement, because they need the support of the public to be effective. When cops are losing the gun guys, the future does not look promising.

    The quickest way to piss people off is to make them feel unjustly treated. You might say "it's what I have to do to be effective at my mission", but they really don't care about that. They care about how what you are doing makes them feel. You may not feel like it's your problem in your specific situation or in a specific incident, but it all adds up and it's taking us nowhere good.

    I don't want to derail this thread as I think you are making good points regarding tactics, but it's a recurring theme that creates tension and sets up opposing parties who really shouldn't be separated. The gun guys (and all innocent people) say "respect my rights and don't treat me like a criminal", and the cops say "I'm doing whatever I need to do to accomplish my mission and go home". The LE world needs to work on figuring out a way to reconcile those two perspectives. The current approach guided by prioritizing possibility over probability (e.g. the existence of a risk, no matter how small, becomes the controlling factor) is not going to work out well.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    All I would say regarding that specific example is that if you aren't comfortable being around good guys with guns, you shouldn't be a cop in the U.S. and you need to get out of your "Us vs Them" bubble. What are you going to do when everybody in Texas is open-carrying during Harvey?

    Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your perspective... I just tend to look at the big picture and analyze the trends. Right now, the trend is bad for cops on both ends of the spectrum. The thugs/BLM types/anarchist types are becoming more bold in their anti-cop activities (including putting words into actions and ambushing/assassinating cops). At the same time, the pro-gun right, traditionally solidly pro-cop, is increasingly concerned about issues of freedom and constitutional principles and is becoming more and more anti-cop.

    If you ever browse the comments on a gun blog site when they post a story about the latest controversial police shooting or other incidents, you might be shocked to see how anti-cop many in the gun community have become. It's a trend that should really concern law enforcement, because they need the support of the public to be effective. When cops are losing the gun guys, the future does not look promising.

    The quickest way to piss people off is to make them feel unjustly treated. You might say "it's what I have to do to be effective at my mission", but they really don't care about that. They care about how what you are doing makes them feel. You may not feel like it's your problem in your specific situation or in a specific incident, but it all adds up and it's taking us nowhere good.

    I don't want to derail this thread as I think you are making good points regarding tactics, but it's a recurring theme that creates tension and sets up opposing parties who really shouldn't be separated. The gun guys (and all innocent people) say "respect my rights and don't treat me like a criminal", and the cops say "I'm doing whatever I need to do to accomplish my mission and go home". The LE world needs to work on figuring out a way to reconcile those two perspectives. The current approach guided by prioritizing possibility over probability (e.g. the existence of a risk, no matter how small, becomes the controlling factor) is not going to work out well.
    They can have their feelings respected when they're safe and secure after the bad people are dead.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanNobody View Post
    They can have their feelings respected when they're safe and secure after the bad people are dead.
    Spoken like a true cop.

    For clarification, I wasn't speaking specifically about a situation like Greg is discussing, but more about the larger general dynamics of public perception of, and reaction to, typical law enforcement procedures and tactics.

    I was trying to give insight into why ronlassit said what he said, as I shared some of it in my initial reaction to Greg's first post.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,137
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    Spoken like a true cop.

    For clarification, I wasn't speaking specifically about a situation like Greg is discussing, but more about the larger general dynamics of public perception of, and reaction to, typical law enforcement procedures and tactics.

    I was trying to give insight into why ronlassit said what he said, as I shared some of it in my initial reaction to Greg's first post.
    I think Gabe's introductory statement looms large here.

    For the record, I'm a "scum sucking civilian" with a bit of a Libertarian world view but also a moral conscious guided by the Good Book.

    There is what some of us might think "should be", and there is "what is". There is value to the thinking man's understanding of what is, even if it conflicts with what we believe morally or even spiritually should be. I think this is one of those issues where one side will not convince the other, so why even bother attempting dialogue in that direction?

    We have several alpha male type personalities here, most of whom probably have a slightly inflated sense of their own skill set, and an unhealthy disrespect for the skills of anyone they have not directly observed. Because of this, straw-man hypothetical arguments and strategic thinking are not going to have any influence in this dialogue.

    The best net win I see, is to sit back and absorb what the current orthodoxy is, let it inform my strategy, and the chips will fall where they chips will fall.

    Debating LE orthodoxy merits is more of a political/philosophical discussion I'd suggest better left for another thread and let the tangible merits of the orthodoxy be discussed in terms of raw effectiveness vs. the broader questions.

    Bottom line, the political/philosophical implications will guide orthodoxy over time regardless of what any of us think, and there will be trade-offs to that which probably won't be pleasant.

    To a great extent, society has insisted on the current orthodoxy and is now going through "buyer's remorse". We have outsourced our personal security, it has created a predator friendly Eco-system, and the current orthodoxy has evolved based on those dynamics.

    I'm grateful for the candid description of the current orthodoxy, and I can make necessary adjustments accordingly.
    In order for the underprivileged and inept to feel adequate, the skilled and capable must be made stupid by decree.

    - Gabe Suarez, 12/13/2011

    “If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”

    - Justice Clarence Thomas

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,614
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    All I would say regarding that specific example is that if you aren't comfortable being around good guys with guns, you shouldn't be a cop in the U.S. and you need to get out of your "Us vs Them" bubble. What are you going to do when everybody in Texas is open-carrying during Harvey? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why does nobody exercise discernment and discretion when applying information any more? Why is it always "us vs. them" questions rather than doing the appropriate things at the appropriate times? When I say that it's a thinking man's game what I really mean is IT'S A THINKING MANS GAME. Do you think this is really an issue with my perspective or your experience and understanding?

    Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your perspective... I just tend to look at the big picture and analyze the trends. Right now, the trend is bad for cops on both ends of the spectrum. The thugs/BLM types/anarchist types are becoming more bold in their anti-cop activities (including putting words into actions and ambushing/assassinating cops). At the same time, the pro-gun right, traditionally solidly pro-cop, is increasingly concerned about issues of freedom and constitutional principles and is becoming more and more anti-cop. This is the problem with "civilized" society, everyone wants to feel safe and happy and have officer friendly/Dudley Do Right give them a smile and a hug and be unconditionally civically minded, but when the shots start ringing out in close proximity they want a savage meat eater to go in there and exterminate the threat rapidly and efficiently, those outside of those experiences/situations have trouble reconciling the two.

    If you ever browse the comments on a gun blog site when they post a story about the latest controversial police shooting or other incidents, you might be shocked to see how anti-cop many in the gun community have become. It's a trend that should really concern law enforcement, because they need the support of the public to be effective. When cops are losing the gun guys, the future does not look promising. This is a result of the liberal trending nation. Even people who were historically conservative have moved to a point that is basically where the democrat party was 20-30 years ago. That and breeding LEOs without the experience, guidance, or support to make the best decisions in dynamic situations

    The quickest way to piss people off is to make them feel unjustly treated. You might say "it's what I have to do to be effective at my mission", but they really don't care about that. They care about how what you are doing makes them feel. You may not feel like it's your problem in your specific situation or in a specific incident, but it all adds up and it's taking us nowhere good. If someone gets pissed that they had to lay on the ground for a few minutes or possibly restrained to save their life or that of their friends and family then they need to spend some time learning emotional maturity and devote some to introspection as well. I know it irritates me to get pulled over and provide my information to an officer but I also know that's how they perform their function and I assist in any way I can, I don't move, keep my hands on the wheel and wait for them to give direction, and before doing anything I ask permission

    I don't want to derail this thread as I think you are making good points regarding tactics, but it's a recurring theme that creates tension and sets up opposing parties who really shouldn't be separated. The gun guys (and all innocent people) say "respect my rights and don't treat me like a criminal", and the cops say "I'm doing whatever I need to do to accomplish my mission and go home". The LE world needs to work on figuring out a way to reconcile those two perspectives. The current approach guided by prioritizing possibility over probability (e.g. the existence of a risk, no matter how small, becomes the controlling factor) is not going to work out well. Why are they mutually exclusive? I used to cuff pretty much everyone and always used the phrase "for your safety and mine I'm going to cuff you for a moment and sit you down until I can figure out what's going on. Again I find it odd that the onus is placed only on the LEO and the performance of his/her duty rather than the maturity of both, you can literally accomplish both at the same time as long as the parties involved are emotionally mature and mutually accommodating. The way you are phrasing this is basically saying the LEO should be professional, soft and accommodating in every situation and that just because someone isn't a LEO they can behave however retarded they want to as long ast they aren't directly threatening to the LEO or someone else. That's just not true, failure to follow LEO direction in this type of scenario dramatically increases the danger to the big mouth non-combatant, the LEO, and increases the likelihood of more loss of life to people not even directly involved in your exchange with the loud mouth
    BOLD

    I'm not chewing at you but I can only say these things so many times in so many ways
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,614
    Quote Originally Posted by SigPro09 View Post
    There is what some of us might think "should be", and there is "what is". There is value to the thinking man's understanding of what is, even if it conflicts with what we believe morally or even spiritually should be. I think this is one of those issues where one side will not convince the other, so why even bother attempting dialogue in that direction? Yes excepting that again that's all or nothing thinking

    We have several alpha male type personalities here, most of whom probably have a slightly inflated sense of their own skill set, and an unhealthy disrespect for the skills of anyone they have not directly observed. Because of this, straw-man hypothetical arguments and strategic thinking are not going to have any influence in this dialogue. This is precisely why I use words like determine, diagnose, decide. I know through experience my way works, and isn't any less effective because it doesn't feel good. I like the hypotheticals because you change one little thing about the picture of the event it can completely change your decision matrix

    The best net win I see, is to sit back and absorb what the current orthodoxy is, let it inform my strategy, and the chips will fall where they chips will fall. That's a money statement right there. People get emotionally involved in what/how they believe events should work rather than the math of do they work and how well

    Debating LE orthodoxy merits is more of a political/philosophical discussion I'd suggest better left for another thread and let the tangible merits of the orthodoxy be discussed in terms of raw effectiveness vs. the broader questions. And this is even regional as well, its dependent on policy, politics, and treat/potential threat level. The orthodoxy I present is for high risk high populace as this is worst case, the tactics can always be watered down for specific situations... Gotta think.

    Bottom line, the political/philosophical implications will guide orthodoxy over time regardless of what any of us think, and there will be trade-offs to that which probably won't be pleasant.

    To a great extent, society has insisted on the current orthodoxy and is now going through "buyer's remorse". We have outsourced our personal security, it has created a predator friendly Eco-system, and the current orthodoxy has evolved based on those dynamics. This is exactly correct, a huge chunk of LEOs were combat vets prior to the 80s and 90s and because the hiring strategy has become more politicized and requirements for hire moved from experience to education we are getting officers with less life experience and the policy and procedures have been tuned to those people to try to legislate and document things that should be a matter of discernment based on experience

    I'm grateful for the candid description of the current orthodoxy, and I can make necessary adjustments accordingly. This is the most mature stance I've read and agree whole heartedly
    per usual
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,769
    It's all cool, I've got no point I'm defending here, I just tend to immediately take whatever somebody is saying and extrapolate, take it up a level, explore the longer-term ramifications, etc. It usually gets me in trouble, because people don't think I'm talking about what they are talking about. I'm usually trying to expand the conversation instead of limiting it to the original topic, which confuses and annoys most people.

    Greg said:

    Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why does nobody exercise discernment and discretion when applying information any more? Why is it always "us vs. them" questions rather than doing the appropriate things at the appropriate times?


    You are absolutely right--that's the way it should be. I'm focusing on the fact that to most external observers, much of what law enforcement does appears to be very unreasonable. For example, if a game warden is approaching an hunting camp, why does he need to treat everybody like potential criminals/threats? That may seem reasonable from a risk-based thinking on the side of law enforcement, but it seems extremely unreasonable from the perspective of the general public. If a game warden isn't comfortable around people with guns, he's in the wrong job. And his perceived potential for risk is not sufficient justification for treating the people he supposedly "serves" like that. Like it or not, that's the job he signed up for, and the people who pay his paycheck think there should be limits on what he does with the authority that comes with his badge and gun. Law Enforcement can talk about risk, how quickly a situation can go bad, etc. and be 100% right from a tactical perspective, but that is going to be irrelevant to the other side. So the longer they insist on maintaining their position, the worse the public attitude will be toward them. Is that a good trend?

    On the other hand, I know there are plenty of good experienced cops who handle such situations much better. So my point is that there is probably a better way that improves PR without significantly increasing risk to the officer, and we should explore and pursue that instead of maintaining the "I'm going home at the end of this shift and nothing else matters!" attitude that is so prevalent, especially in the younger cops.

    You can say "I'm cuffing you for my safety" and really mean it, but all the other person (and everybody viewing the FB/YT video later) will care about is that they were treated like a criminal by the scared jack-booted thug cop who's hassling people for no good reason. Multiply that by many incidents over many years, and you get to where we are today. Of course you are correct about the way it ought to be, but that has no relevance to the PR/political question. Law enforcement has to deal with what is, not what ought to be.

    So to bring it back to where we started, this is the part that I'm focused on:

    -----------

    If they’re compliant and following command they will get subsequent string of command. I’d prefer them to be kneeling with their ankles crossed and their fingers laced behind their head, facing away from me. Once in this position I will back sling and go to pistol until I have a crush grip on their laced fingers, then I will holster.

    After cuffing or zip-tieing their hands behind their back I will conduct a cursory search for weapons or anything that can be used to unsecure themselves. I prefer them on their knees because it’s easier and faster to search and if you are working with contact/cover you can pitch the person away to keep yourself out of cover’s line of fire which is harder to do in the prone. Once the search is concluded I pull their shirt over their face and lay them face down to continue with the search or depending on the environment take them outside and lay them on their face with their face covered and start my clear over again. In general I will rather clear the structure entirely before I do more with the unknown especially if I’m solo.


    ----------

    Obviously solid strategy tactically speaking, but don't be surprised if somebody who is treated like that is a BLM type who is not inclined to follow the direction of LE without resistance, takes great offense to being treated like this as a result, and will immediately try to bring a lawsuit for having their civil rights violated resulting in great irreparable emotional and psychological harm.

    That being said, as Gabe frequently reminds us, we can't fix society, we can't fix government, etc. All we can do is deal with our immediate sphere of influence. That means just dealing with it if we are on the receiving end of something we object to, and moving on with our lives. Most of us are in a position where we can do that, but those in LE will have to face these issues sooner or later.

    All that to say that I have no disagreement with what anybody has said about how to handle such situations on an individual level. So I apologize in advance if my wandering into the higher-level conversation has annoyed anybody.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Third Coast
    Posts
    4,285
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    It's all cool, I've got no point I'm defending here, I just tend to immediately take whatever somebody is saying and extrapolate, take it up a level, explore the longer-term ramifications, etc. It usually gets me in trouble, because people don't think I'm talking about what they are talking about. I'm usually trying to expand the conversation instead of limiting it to the original topic, which confuses and annoys most people.

    Greg said:

    Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why does nobody exercise discernment and discretion when applying information any more? Why is it always "us vs. them" questions rather than doing the appropriate things at the appropriate times?


    You are absolutely right--that's the way it should be. I'm focusing on the fact that to most external observers, much of what law enforcement does appears to be very unreasonable. For example, if a game warden is approaching an hunting camp, why does he need to treat everybody like potential criminals/threats? That may seem reasonable from a risk-based thinking on the side of law enforcement, but it seems extremely unreasonable from the perspective of the general public. If a game warden isn't comfortable around people with guns, he's in the wrong job. And his perceived potential for risk is not sufficient justification for treating the people he supposedly "serves" like that. Like it or not, that's the job he signed up for, and the people who pay his paycheck think there should be limits on what he does with the authority that comes with his badge and gun. Law Enforcement can talk about risk, how quickly a situation can go bad, etc. and be 100% right from a tactical perspective, but that is going to be irrelevant to the other side. So the longer they insist on maintaining their position, the worse the public attitude will be toward them. Is that a good trend?

    On the other hand, I know there are plenty of good experienced cops who handle such situations much better. So my point is that there is probably a better way that improves PR without significantly increasing risk to the officer, and we should explore and pursue that instead of maintaining the "I'm going home at the end of this shift and nothing else matters!" attitude that is so prevalent, especially in the younger cops.

    You can say "I'm cuffing you for my safety" and really mean it, but all the other person (and everybody viewing the FB/YT video later) will care about is that they were treated like a criminal by the scared jack-booted thug cop who's hassling people for no good reason. Multiply that by many incidents over many years, and you get to where we are today. Of course you are correct about the way it ought to be, but that has no relevance to the PR/political question. Law enforcement has to deal with what is, not what ought to be.

    So to bring it back to where we started, this is the part that I'm focused on:

    -----------

    If they’re compliant and following command they will get subsequent string of command. I’d prefer them to be kneeling with their ankles crossed and their fingers laced behind their head, facing away from me. Once in this position I will back sling and go to pistol until I have a crush grip on their laced fingers, then I will holster.

    After cuffing or zip-tieing their hands behind their back I will conduct a cursory search for weapons or anything that can be used to unsecure themselves. I prefer them on their knees because it’s easier and faster to search and if you are working with contact/cover you can pitch the person away to keep yourself out of cover’s line of fire which is harder to do in the prone. Once the search is concluded I pull their shirt over their face and lay them face down to continue with the search or depending on the environment take them outside and lay them on their face with their face covered and start my clear over again. In general I will rather clear the structure entirely before I do more with the unknown especially if I’m solo.


    ----------

    Obviously solid strategy tactically speaking, but don't be surprised if somebody who is treated like that is a BLM type who is not inclined to follow the direction of LE without resistance, takes great offense to being treated like this as a result, and will immediately try to bring a lawsuit for having their civil rights violated resulting in great irreparable emotional and psychological harm.

    That being said, as Gabe frequently reminds us, we can't fix society, we can't fix government, etc. All we can do is deal with our immediate sphere of influence. That means just dealing with it if we are on the receiving end of something we object to, and moving on with our lives. Most of us are in a position where we can do that, but those in LE will have to face these issues sooner or later.

    All that to say that I have no disagreement with what anybody has said about how to handle such situations on an individual level. So I apologize in advance if my wandering into the higher-level conversation has annoyed anybody.
    when they sue, thats why the .gov and officers have risk pools and lawyers.

    and perception is wrong

    https://youtu.be/nRd5oucG114
    NEVER CONFUSE GETTING LUCKY WITH GOOD TACTICS (unless you are at the bar)

    I'm not in the business of Losing

    A stab to the taint beats most of the mystical bullshit, most of the time

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •