***
Burlington: How many heard the shooter described as "Hispanic-looking" and thought "Oh, bioy here we go again"?Now, a 20 year old Turk living in America for years may or may not be a Muslim, or a devout one,at any rate, but I can just picture the meeting where some brasshat vetted the APB and said "Yeah, so what does 'Levantine' mean again? Yeah, that's what I thought, no."
At least the warnings against "backlash" don't seem as severe as usual. Or even the media are getting tired of them.
OTOH, I haven't been watching the press conferences because every time they come on there's Governor Inslee hinting at gun control to come...
Even if all he had was what looks like a Ruger 10/22. Damned Fudd guns.
BTW, that mall which is said to have been posted, I am told that only the theater there is posted. Like many states with licensed carry, IF every public entrance is clearly posted, then you can be asked to leave if caught; if you return armed, or refuse to leave, you can be charge with misdemeanor trespass.
***
Charlotte: Looks to me like, even if he didn't have a gun in his hand, the police had every reason to believe he was going for one.
And even if they were wrong, burning down the city is not a good way to get your point across. Look what it did for my hometown...
Also, blocking the Interstate is not a good idea, especially when you ar doing it in such a manner as to give motorists reason to believe that you are threatening them with grave bodily harm.
You might then give them reason to believe that their best course of action will be to put it in drive (or maybe "low") and move forward.
Note that "drive on" is not meant to mean "deliberately run people down." But is they are pounding on your car, yelling threats, throwing rocks, trying to rock it and overturn it, well, they're playing stupid games, they should be prepared to win stupid prizes.
***
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners has determines that the proper response of Los Angeles' Finest to armed suspects should be to... run away.LAPPL - Los Angeles Police Protective League: Police Commission tells officers to run away, or else
The officers didn’t run away. The Commission, armed with video and their own political agenda broke down the footage frame by frame to determine that in the course of seconds, the first officer whose “position initially provided Officer C with a position of tactical advantage” lost the advantage as the suspect charged him. They wrote, “this advantage rapidly diminished as the Subject continued her advance, leaving him with neither distance nor effective cover as the Subject approached the space between two parked vehicles by which Officer C was located.”Hmmm, I wonder how the mayor would feel if his protective detail yelled "gun!" and...ran away?
Suspect charging from the front. Vehicles on either side. Where do you “redeploy?” Run backwards. This is absurd and it’s dangerous. What happens if the officer loses his footing with a charging suspect? What happens if the suspect runs into a nearby home or store and confronts its occupants with her weapon? What if the suspect also had a concealed gun? What is created when an officer turns tail and runs away is a large target. It’s called a back. The officer would put their lives in further jeopardy by running away if the suspect had a gun. At this close range, running away would create a self-caused danger to the officers and the public.
Chief Beck, who has absolutely no problem finding fault with officers, agreed with these officers’ actions. The Commission, with a grand total of zero years of experience in law enforcement, overruled the Chief’s decision. The Commissioners created an alternative set of facts that acknowledged that the officer was right to believe his life was in jeopardy but found fault with the officer shooting the knife-wielding suspect because the officer should have run away.
No comments:
Post a Comment