If tossing some sort of gas is totally out of the question, why do they make that attachment for the robot Dallas had?
Since when is this ok?
- Thread starter Drillbit
- Start date
The attachment? That's to investigate/disrupt potential IEDs-i.e. its intended purpose is to do things like carry small charges to disrupt an initiator or to render safe a potential explosive in a controlled fashion.
My commentary was about the gas; what is some sort of gas? Is it off the shelf? Does it comply with appropriate chemical weapons convention statutes? Is it something every police entity should have? Just a riot control agent like CS which could make the assailant degraded but given the unknowns (like his allegations of having IEDs) which then increases variables for the response force-or would it be something like what the Russians used (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ids-theater-gas-fentanyl/) which we'd be talking about now b/c we 'gassed someone to death'?
That's without even going into the details of how a gas is weaponized and employed; i.e. what were the weather conditions, wind conditions and prevailing direction, temp/humidity, if the agent would be persistent or non-persistent, etc-i.e. the details of the realities behind the blithe commentary of 'couldn't we just have gassed him' that amateurs throw out.
ptschram
Well-known member
With regard to qualifications of LEOs, when I applied to FWPD in '96 I hadn't realized what I'd nearly gotten myself into until I got a call from the head recruiting officer-the same day I submitted the application!
Apparently, if you're highly educated and have a steady somewhat related work history, you go directly to the front of the line.
Under most circumstances being selected to be a police officer is a lengthy process. If you have an education and experience they think would be beneficial, that process got much shorter.
Had I not gotten another engineering job, I feel confident that I would have been a law enforcement officer in about a month of testing and interviews.
As for compensation, at that time (1996) an entry level patrol officer in Fort Wayne, IN had a pay rate of $36,000 or $38,000 if you had a college degree. In comparison, an experienced, certified environmental engineer earned $44,000.
Regardless of how unlikely you think it would have been for me to have been hired, much less stick it out, had I accepted the position offered me, I'd be retiring in a few months with a state funded retirement I could begin collecting in about ten years.
Yeah, I probably fucked up big time.
Apparently, if you're highly educated and have a steady somewhat related work history, you go directly to the front of the line.
Under most circumstances being selected to be a police officer is a lengthy process. If you have an education and experience they think would be beneficial, that process got much shorter.
Had I not gotten another engineering job, I feel confident that I would have been a law enforcement officer in about a month of testing and interviews.
As for compensation, at that time (1996) an entry level patrol officer in Fort Wayne, IN had a pay rate of $36,000 or $38,000 if you had a college degree. In comparison, an experienced, certified environmental engineer earned $44,000.
Regardless of how unlikely you think it would have been for me to have been hired, much less stick it out, had I accepted the position offered me, I'd be retiring in a few months with a state funded retirement I could begin collecting in about ten years.
Yeah, I probably fucked up big time.
That's not the way they do things in Waterford, CT.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
What part of that is tin foil? The government isn't here to protect us (certainly the police have no obligation to, according to the Supreme Court) and would love for citizens to be disarmed.
I believe the Dallas PD used their best asset that they had available at the time and it is good that they were able to take out this dick to prevent more deaths. But let's face it, this is a precedent. The U.S. Government already wants to use drones against U.S. Citizens. There goes your due process, you can't go to trial if you are dead.
Who makes the call when to take a kill shot and in what circumstances?
Maybe the family dog is a threat? A 14 year old boy coming back from hunting ? A women holding a baby in her arms?
Yes, these were all shots taken by the U.S. Government. So do we blindly trust them with robots and drones?
For me, I may start to put light layers of tinfoil under my hats (don't want the shine to give me away).
Ok JB, laugh away.
