http://www.startribune.com/local/east/168131816.html?refer=y It is standard police procedure to only save the victim when it is safe for them to do so. Safe usually means after the perp has harmed his victims. Then when the police do act you have to worry about them shooting the victims.
[video=youtube;XgXnDrdov9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXnDrdov9w[/video] Police wait in safety as hostages are shot. Don't worry. No police were harmed in this video.
You have the sole responsibility to protect yourself. Placing that responsibility into the hands of other people is simply asinine.
As a police officer once told me, 'why should I die for a stranger? I have small children waiting for me at home. And I may not even like the person'.
Thats the attitude across the board, LEO, Fire, and EMS. Thats the MO for the fire department I am member of, don't risk your life.
Someone who wishes to do you harm and catches you alone, and you cant protect yourself you may as well be a worm discovered by a robin. Hence the .38 calibre "ladysmith".
Yep = lets dismantle the police force At least you can do that over there - we'll just sit back and watch!!
Strawman arguement once again. No one here who owns a gun holds that opinion. Why don't you address my real opinions instead of making one up for me that will be easy for you to mock. The trend over the last several days is you got nothing but logical fallacies to prove your point. You should look into changing your mind instead of building these logical fallacies.
Strawman arguement once again. No one here who owns a gun holds that opinion. Why don't you address my real opinions instead of making one up for me that will be easy for you to mock. The trend over the last several days is you got nothing but logical fallacies to prove your point. You should look into changing your mind instead of building these logical fallacies.
Supreme Court says, police are not responsible for your protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Rapped for several hours as the police drive by and don't stop.
It's like trying to talk sense to a creationist. How can you when their arguments are based on what they make up, misrepresent distort etc, and, when they never ever will concede the least point no matter what?
The turning point was Columbine. Before that incident the mantra was safety of self and colleagues first. It's changed. The doctrine - Active Shooter - holds that any officer who is able to do so should intervene if possible. No point in "Tombstone courage" of course, that just means the cop gets killed and isn't effective as well as losing his or her life. But the old idea of waiting until there is backup of sufficient force to re-run Operation Overlord is finished. When I was a police officer I had this out with command officers in my department and the then Deputy Commissioner came down on the "intervene if you can" side and training and SOPs were revised to follow the post-Columbine doctrine. This seems to be a ****-up all round. I'm not blaming the hostage, poor bastard was probably severely traumatised. I'm not blindly defending the cops either - sometimes you have to hold back to make sure you know what's what and don't act in haste, even if it means ramping up the hazard. Hopefully a proper inquiry will find out the truth and proper responses follow.
Well, if you consider my response a "straw man" perhaps you would be so kind as to expand upon your premise so as to clarify the intent. To that purpose I will re-examine your original post And your "evidence" of this is what? An anecdotal story published in a newspaper which may or may not have had it's facts correct about the situation Again there appears to be extrapolation from minimal information - did someone say "straw man fallacy?" Now, if this WERE an indication of the normal behaviour of the police what do you think should be done about it?
Now here, in bold, you give a good example of how an anecdote does not does demonstrate a generalization. It could of course be evidence that the generalization is true. It would take a lot more to demonstrate it to be true. Now, as for straw man, we have been complaining about your use of them. Extrapolating from minimal info is not "straw man" as you seem to imply. What IS, is arguing against positions not held and things not said. Remember this? Strawman arguement once again. No one here who owns a gun holds that opinion*. Why do you keep doing this? *
How can asking a question - which is what I am doing - be construed as accusation? I am attempting to determine motivation - that is not a "straw man"
That is another textbook strawman. You have assigned me as a creationist when I am not. You made up this fact and it is distorted so it lends weight to your arguement. Another strawman arguement. No one here advocates dismantling police. She created this out of thin air and assigned this opinion to me. She distored what I have to say to add weight to her arguement. She can not attack my real arguement so she created one for me.
In this thread there is my post on the Supreme Court decision that you have no right to police protection. The failure of police to respond in time to crime. How police wait in safety to protect themselves when hostages are in grave danger and instead you have assigned to me that I want to dismantle the police force. Strawman arguement. Try again without logical fallacy.
[video=youtube;X_4owtZ8YYE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_4owtZ8YYE[/video] 911 recording of police shooting wrong person in the back 6 times. Don't worry police and bad guy were not harmed.
I was being SARCASTIC - you know that thing people do to try and get a response that makes sense? So again I ask - what are you going to do about this? How do you propose to "get the police there in time"? What alternatives do you propose?
Im wondering if you are even sane. Where do you get this idea there was an "accusation"? Weird. A straw man is still a straw man no matter what you later say it was for.
I am not a creationist. You created me to be one, strawman. Address my points instead of trying to make up one for me.
Another strawman arguement. I don't propose police getting on time to prevent a crime. Why would I propose that police get there in time when all that I present actually shows that they don't get there on time.
I wish that if people are going to talk ad hom and strawman, they'd at least make an effort to figure out what they are. I did not say you are a creationist. I said it is, look now...LIKE as in "similar to" talking to a creationist. I did not "create you to be one." That is simply false. There is no strawman. You do tho match what I was saying about creationists. You made something up, and misrepresented what I said. Now, lets see if you can concede that I in no way said, implied, or "created you to be" a creationist. That will indicate if you have the capacity-unlike a creationist-to concede to error in the least little thing.
On the contrary, in the scenarios so far, if the "victim" can not rely on the police getting there, or if they do get there, not intervening on personal safety grounds, then what point is there in having them at all?
