Shots fired at downtown Dallas protest

[SS Junk]

Dang, no one wanted to answer this, did they?

I fully believe one reason is they had no answer for someone with military training. Watch the video of the cop getting shot by the pillars. He had no fucking clue what to do and the shooter had all the right moves. If Frost was to ever go this crazy I'm sure they'd do the same to him as well.

[CexMashean]

How many people need to die trying to apprehend a well-armed, violent criminal before "taking him out" makes sense to people?

[cool cat]

How many would've been saved in Orlando if they had a bomb robot?

[TX_92_Notch]

How many would've been saved in Orlando if they had a bomb robot?

Wasn't the shooter surrounded by hostages after the initial chaos ended?

[cool cat]

Wasn't the shooter surrounded by hostages after the initial chaos ended?

Probably, I was just asking if it would've helped in any way.

[Broncojohnny]

Wasn't the shooter surrounded by hostages after the initial chaos ended?

It wouldn't matter. And that is the danger of allowing the police to do whatever they want. If you want a great example of this in action, go read what happened when the Philadelphia PD bombed the MOVE headquarters from a helicopter in the 1970s. They ended up killing something like ten kids and burning down 60 row houses. No charges were ever filed and the mayor resigned after the PD threatened to kill him.

While I agree that in this particular situation it made sense, doing this as routine practice does not. And even when it might be justified it is still very dangerous and the police will not held accountable when things go wrong.

[Cum Dumpster]

I fully believe one reason is they had no answer for someone with military training. Watch the video of the cop getting shot by the pillars. He had no fucking clue what to do and the shooter had all the right moves. If Frost was to ever go this crazy I'm sure they'd do the same to him as well.

The current training and policy for an active shooter is to move in on the shooter. This is one case where the policy had terrible consequences. The guy was motivated, was only trying to kill cops, and was probably high, among many other things. If he had been trying to kill civilians who were unarmed we would have stopped him from killing them. The idea is to have him confront cops who can at least shoot back and maybe kill him.

I don't think he had much military training if the stories I read on him were correct. I thought he was a civil engineer for his tour in Iraq, not really something where they guys/girls get a tom of combat training or experience.

My nephew, who is a Dallas PD officer, served in Iraq for several tours and was an AF civil engineer who oversaw the building of several forward operating bases. He had his weapon with him but never saw any actual combat.

[SS Junk]

The current training and policy for an active shooter is to move in on the shooter. This is one case where the policy had terrible consequences. The guy was motivated, was only trying to kill cops, and was probably high, among many other things. If he had been trying to kill civilians who were unarmed we would have stopped him from killing them. The idea is to have him confront cops who can at least shoot back and maybe kill him.

It's bad policy because you have a cop leroy jenkins his way to the pillars and die. That's bad training and bad policy. Regardless of what he did during his military career he still had to go through boot camp which teaches you on how to be highly motivated and survive in combat.

[Cum Dumpster]

It's bad policy because you have a cop leroy jenkins his way to the pillars and die. That's bad training and bad policy. Regardless of what he did during his military career he still had to go through boot camp which teaches you on how to be highly motivated and survive in combat.

It is not bad policy. It is borne out of the majority of the active shooters. The majority are killing innocents who are unarmed. They usually either commit suicide or start to engage the officer when confronted. Either way, the majority of the active shooters are neutralized by this policy.

We should never have another Columbine where cops sit outside while children are being murdered. That was the policy back then, and it was wrong.

This is why I see cops as heroes, we asked for this job and we SHOULD run to the shooter, even if it means we will sometimes be killed. I sure saw a lot of FTP types running away from the shooter, not towards it like the cops did.

Feel free to outline your thoughts on what police in America should do when we have an active shooter.

[juiceweezl]

It is not bad policy. It is borne out of the majority of the active shooters. The majority are killing innocents who are unarmed. They usually either commit suicide or start to engage the officer when confronted. Either way, the majority of the active shooters are neutralized by this policy.

We should never have another Columbine where cops sit outside while children are being murdered. That was the policy back then, and it was wrong.

This is why I see cops as heroes, we asked for this job and we SHOULD run to the shooter, even if it means we will sometimes be killed. I sure saw a lot of FTP types running away from the shooter, not towards it like the cops did.

Feel free to outline your thoughts on what police in America should do when we have an active shooter.

Simple if you ask me. Just 3 words.

Engage...Apprehend (if possible)...Eliminate (if apprehension not possible)

[Cum Dumpster]

Simple if you ask me. Just 3 words.

Engage...Apprehend (if possible)...Eliminate (if apprehension not possible)

Yep, the key word is ENGAGE. I went to the school shooting active shooter training FWPD puts on every summer. It is all about a single officer going in to ENGAGE the suspect. In this type of scenario, there is nothing really good to come out of it. The idea is we already have a person ACTIVELY shooting people (or at people). Even the training is freaking intense.

[Forever_frost]

How many people need to die trying to apprehend a well-armed, violent criminal before "taking him out" makes sense to people?

Taking someone out? No problem there. Sending in a drone with explosives? Problem. If you have to, you have highly trained officers with rifles.

[Forever_frost]

I fully believe one reason is they had no answer for someone with military training. Watch the video of the cop getting shot by the pillars. He had no fucking clue what to do and the shooter had all the right moves. If Frost was to ever go this crazy I'm sure they'd do the same to him as well.

As odd as it sounds, that is one of the nicest things someone's said about me in a long while.

[Forever_frost]

The current training and policy for an active shooter is to move in on the shooter. This is one case where the policy had terrible consequences. The guy was motivated, was only trying to kill cops, and was probably high, among many other things. If he had been trying to kill civilians who were unarmed we would have stopped him from killing them. The idea is to have him confront cops who can at least shoot back and maybe kill him.

I don't think he had much military training if the stories I read on him were correct. I thought he was a civil engineer for his tour in Iraq, not really something where they guys/girls get a tom of combat training or experience.

My nephew, who is a Dallas PD officer, served in Iraq for several tours and was an AF civil engineer who oversaw the building of several forward operating bases. He had his weapon with him but never saw any actual combat.

Latest news reports are that he was an engineer (mortar specialist who built buildings) that came back and took tactical classes to train him to shoot and move and react to real world active shooter environments. Basically, he took fast infantry courses.

[SS Junk]

Yep, the key word is ENGAGE.

They need to come up with a better way to engage then when dealing with someone who may have them out trained.


This is a 19 year old Marine. Served in Iraq for seven months as a Humvee driver. Shot two cops killing one of them.
My thoughts are police need better training to deal with a scenario that involves a shooter(s) who have military background or combat experience. A cop friend of mine in the MD area has told me within the last few years they're having to deal with more and more PTSD vets as time goes by.

As odd as it sounds, that is one of the nicest things someone's said about me in a long while.

I have a huge respect for those who've been through combat. It's a back handed complement.