# Not a good solution



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A86.IrwY...uaHRtbA--/RS=^ADAJ4VxfQVIcQQzgg3MQNASCFoCEVo-

So now, instead of a crime being a crime, they're now going to stand back and debate just how serious of a crime it is, before the police take any action.

Naw.....I don't see any problems or dirt bags taking advantage of this new policy.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Damned if ya do... damned if ya don't.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

TAPnRACK said:


> Damned if ya do... damned if ya don't.


Sadly, that's pretty much what it has evolved to.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> So now, instead of a crime being a crime, they're now going to stand back and debate just how serious of a crime it is, before the police take any action.


Whoa ..... seems like you want it both ways. Weren't you also criticizing police for shooting a guy who was throwing rocks at them, advocating that they "should have practiced restraint"? Let's examine what was really the crime in the news article, throwing paint on a memorial. Yea, so you want them to fall in and blitzkrieg them, batons and stun guns and pepper spray everywhere? Over a little paint? What's wrong with letting non-violent protesters do their protest, go away, and then clean up their mess later? Seems more appropriate than jumping in to bash heads, which was the complaint against shooting the rock throwing disturbed guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how the argument comes across to me.


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

Sorry but I don't see it that way -- it's not an either or.
Rock case -- crime being committed and police reacted -- overreacted but they did address the crime being committed.
Memorial case -- crime being committed and police being told to ignore it -- wrong answer.

In both cases the crime being committed SHOULD be addressed and SHOULD be addressed with an appropriate response. Simply ignoring a crime is NOT acceptable.

And if you go back and re-read Para's response it was that it should have been handled differently and absolutely NOT that it should have been ignored.

As for what's wrong with it? Who pays to "clean up their mess"?? Defacing public and/or private property is not an acceptable form of protest.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Scorpion8 said:


> Whoa ..... seems like you want it both ways. Weren't you also criticizing police for shooting a guy who was throwing rocks at them, advocating that they "should have practiced restraint"? Let's examine what was really the crime in the news article, throwing paint on a memorial. Yea, so you want them to fall in and blitzkrieg them, batons and stun guns and pepper spray everywhere? Over a little paint? What's wrong with letting non-violent protesters do their protest, go away, and then clean up their mess later? Seems more appropriate than jumping in to bash heads, which was the complaint against shooting the rock throwing disturbed guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how the argument comes across to me.


I wasn't advocating restraint.....I was advocating proper response. There really is a big difference.

Not once did I infer that the officers should have stood around and watched. They had plenty of help on-scene and they could have used a different approach.

In regards to your statement about the protesters coming back later to clean up their mess. *What planet are you from?* Yeah.....that happens all the time. They also right the cars they tipped over, replaced all the windows they broke out, rebuilt all the buildings they burned down, and compensated all the business owners for all the property they stole.

My point was, a crime is a crime, and it needs to be dealt with. As a police officer, where do you draw the line if you stand-by and do nothing while crimes are committed in your presence? Do you wait until someone is injured? If so, how serious of an injury until you take action? Bumps and bruises okay, but blood letting isn't?

Protesters aren't going to draw a line and tell the others protesters than we can do this and that.......but we can't do this and that. I don't have a problem with peaceful and orderly protests. But, those are the exception and not the rule.

My bottom line is that LE still needs to engage law breakers. You can do that w/o violating anyone's rights. I know this for fact........cause I did it for 30+ yrs.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> In regards to your statement about the protesters coming back later to clean up their mess.


You don't read very well. I never said the protesters would clean it up, I said after it was over -- clean it up. Probably the city does that, like the aftermath of any mass protest. But why do you want to wade in bashing heads with batons because they're painting stuff? There's so much surveillance out there you V.I.D. the folks doing the actual crime, let them vent off their steam, and go round them up later. And present them with the bill if you want. Happens all the time in places that practice "restraint". All a big response would do is lead to and incite more violence. Not every "crime" needs to be confronted at the actual moment, or else we wouldn't use cameras to send out speeding tickets. *Balance the response against the incident*.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Scorpion8 said:


> You don't read very well. I never said the protesters would clean it up, I said after it was over -- clean it up. Probably the city does that, like the aftermath of any mass protest. But why do you want to wade in bashing heads with batons because they're painting stuff? There's so much surveillance out there you V.I.D. the folks doing the actual crime, let them vent off their steam, and go round them up later. And present them with the bill if you want. Happens all the time in places that practice "restraint". All a big response would do is lead to and incite more violence. Not every "crime" needs to be confronted at the actual moment, or else we wouldn't use cameras to send out speeding tickets. *Balance the response against the incident*.


Oh I get it now. Those that don't make a mess or damage anything, are responsible to clean it up and pay for repairs.

And, I do read very well. Maybe you just didn't make your point clear.

So....you going to be around to tell the cops when or when not to act? I'm thinking LE could use a guy with all the answers.

BTW.........Suppose you have a business and there's going to be a big demonstration later that day on the very street your business is on. Is it okay for the protesters to throw paint all over the front of your business? Maybe kick in a door or break out a window?


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> So....you going to be around to tell the cops when or when not to act? I'm thinking LE could use a guy with all the answers.


You're over-reacting to my comments. Of course the police have training, procedures and policies, and they have near-instant communication with higher officials in their chain-of-command. If the policy is you (e.g.) don't wade into a crowd of 3,000 protesters when you only have 5 officers, then yes, you balance the fact that your mere presence may incite the crowd to violence against any actual physical harm being done to other innocents. Are you going to wade into that crowd because one guy is peeing on the memorial (OMG, a "crime" in public!!!) or are you going to write that one off for the safety of your 5 officers against that agitated crowd of 3,000? We could both come up with endless scenarios where it's better to just sit back and let them vent and deal with it in the aftermath. Look at it logically and reasonably.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

If the law is going to stand back, they should be getting continuous video recordings, with lots of close-ups of people's faces. If the relevant prosecutor decides that charges are doable, get local TV news to run clips and spin, and issue photo-books to the beat cops. _It's all in the spin_.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Scorpion8 said:


> You're over-reacting to my comments. Of course the police have training, procedures and policies, and they have near-instant communication with higher officials in their chain-of-command. If the policy is you (e.g.) don't wade into a crowd of 3,000 protesters when you only have 5 officers, then yes, you balance the fact that your mere presence may incite the crowd to violence against any actual physical harm being done to other innocents. Are you going to wade into that crowd because one guy is peeing on the memorial (OMG, a "crime" in public!!!) or are you going to write that one off for the safety of your 5 officers against that agitated crowd of 3,000? We could both come up with endless scenarios where it's better to just sit back and let them vent and deal with it in the aftermath. Look at it logically and reasonably.


You're making it sound like as long as it's someone else's property, you could care less. Just let them do their thing and move on.

But I'm thinking you'd be singing a different tune if it was your property or well-being on the line.

I've spent more than half my life in LE. I've been there and done that. There's absolutely nothing that you can educate me or enlighten me on.

You're just talking the talk. You've never walked the walk. You have to do both to have any credible experience.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

hillman said:


> get local TV news to run clips and spin, _It's all in the spin_.


@ Capt. Hillman,

You have been demoted to sergeant Hillman of the North brigade.


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

Yep, showing film on TV is working real well in Ferguson...... A couple of arrests and a whole lot of looted and burned out buildings.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I don't lose any sleep if some current and former military personnel decide to visit some of the "protesters" with a few knuckle sandwiches for desecrating memorials and grave sites of those who died to protect the rights of those very people to protest. There was a time when I engaged in protest*, but I never destroyed property and would never have supported such activity.


* Not against members of our military.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

The protesters were defacing a memorial to fallen police officers. I think that the Leos should have souped up paint ball guns with indelible ink so they could "tattoo" the real trouble makers for I.D. when they're done having their tantrum.
GW


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

LE backing away from what they have sworn to uphold, is a slippery slope. 

Once you have started a downhill slide, it's pretty tough to stop and take back ground you have lost. 

It's a direction best not even started.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

goldwing said:


> The protesters were defacing a memorial to fallen police officers. I think that the Leos should have souped up paint ball guns with indelible ink so they could "tattoo" the real trouble makers for I.D. when they're done having their tantrum.
> GW


My mistake. I was thinking it was fallen members of our military. Still, a memorial to police killed in the line of duty is not something to vandalize.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> There's absolutely nothing that you can educate me or enlighten me on.


And THAT is why you're obsolete. The day any one of us can't learn more or learn new things will be a truly sad day. I never meant my reply to become a personal attack, but that's how you've taken it. Yes, every day a police officer has to make choices, as evidenced by the police officer who passes me doing 58 on the highway. He's breaking the law (!!!) but not significantly enough to warrant time and effort to prosecute himself. That's an extreme case, and there are at least "50 Shades of Grey" in between.

And para, you're don't know me from jack, so don't tell me what walk I've never walked.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Scorpion8 said:


> And THAT is why you're obsolete. The day any one of us can't learn more or learn new things will be a truly sad day. I never meant my reply to become a personal attack, but that's how you've taken it. Yes, every day a police officer has to make choices, as evidenced by the police officer who passes me doing 58 on the highway. He's breaking the law (!!!) but not significantly enough to warrant time and effort to prosecute himself. That's an extreme case, and there are at least "50 Shades of Grey" in between.
> 
> And para, you're don't know me from jack, so don't tell me what walk I've never walked.


Not obsolete. Just retired, and in one piece, more or less.

You do anything long enough and correctly, you pretty much know what works and what doesn't.

If you had walked the walk, you would have said so.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> If you had walked the walk, you would have said so.


This isn't about "credentials", and I don't have to flash mine to know what's right. LEO's back away from confrontations all the time, or temper their use-of-force to fit the situation. Like the guy throwing rocks at police officers earlier....what, two young burly fit cops can't chase him down and cuff him, they have to resort to shooting an unarmed man? There's an instance. Now here, yes, I hate to see dumb-ass protesters desecrate a shrine to those who served, but if it means keeping a few innocents in the mix alive, then let them go vent their steam as long as no one is truly getting hurt, and clean it up another day. Cities absorb this sort of mayhem all the time, even at peaceful events. How many police officers have to be injured to protect a monument in a public place? For what gain? Like I stated, use video and go after them tomorrow. The response always has to fit the situation. Painting your rock isn't worth somebody getting killed. THAT is my point.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Thateus said:


> @ Capt. Hillman,
> 
> You have been demoted to sergeant Hillman of the North brigade.


E5 was as far as I got during my Air Force time, team leader as a civilian. Never much liked telling folks what to do; figured they ought to know.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

There should be no discussion(let alone an order) for law enforcement to "stand down" when obvious laws are being violated.........

The theme song from the TV series _Baretta_ says it all............


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Cait43 said:


> There should be no discussion(let alone an order) for law enforcement to "stand down" when obvious laws are being violated.........
> 
> The theme song from the TV series _Baretta_ says it all............


I've never taken the time to listen to the whole song, nor was I aware of what it said.

Pretty cool!


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

Cleaning up paint, especially after it has dried is a real pain. Any costs involved with the clean up should be worked off by the vandals who did it. For a dollar an hour. That is, after they're arrested. I had a brick building that was vandalized with enamel paint...it had to be sandblasted off. They really should have tazed the buttheads in the act.


----------

