Swat Called On Me Today....

[AnthonyG 36]

The definition of a troll, is someone that makes statements to purposely get on others nerves. The only person I seen do that is ray ray but he does that all the time and I respect his art. However, I think a majority of people here are genuinely expressing their opinions that is not trolling that's called disagreeing.

 

Anyway,regardless of knowing me or not, if you see me a distance away from my guns there is no reason to have the gun pointed at my face with finger on trigger. Having it drawn and lowered is understandable when guns are present.

 

If a LEO has the belief of drawing on someones face like that when coming onto a scene they might as well go into gun shops or gun shows with their guns drawn pointed at everyone because they dont know who might pick up a gun off the table.

[Underdog 1,593]

Whatever...talk to any cop and officer safety is paramount. If I get hurt then I can't do my job to keep citizens safe.

 

 

This isn't a us verse them thing in my mind. We are all Americans. But, if there was no immediate threat... the mere presence of guns to me is not an immediate threat, then having the guns leveled at unarmed individuals seems wrong. And, it is an unnecessary firearms safety violation. And, it would be wrong for you to willy nilly handcuff and ask questions, later. Try being a peace officer. It seems the LEOs are much more paranoid of the private citizen than vice e versa. It sounds like paranoia has taken over from REAL training. There was no need for a SWAT team in full gear. Now, as an additional thought... in a normal world it might have been courteous for the home owner to waylay fears by calling up and letting his local PD know he would be shooting on his own private property that day and the respectful PD would have responded courteously as well.

 

As I have said time and time again, when someone wears the badge he has to live up to a higher standard just as when a private citizen is concealed carrying (where applicable). It seems that those officers were inviting an incidence to occur. I have to tell you, standard procedure or not, if I am a lawful citizen going about my ordinary day and firearms are pointed at me for no just cause (I was not an immediate threat and/or provoking, etc.), then I would not be happy. As written, the officers over-reacted and acted poorly. Oh, and it would seem the police were the aggressors in this scenario. Instead of looking for trouble and thinking everyone is guilty until proven otherwise, keep the peace.

[PeteF 1,044]

 

 

PeteF just doesn't like police because he's been "wronged' in some way...

 

 

PeteF - Police are never the aggressors. If they deem everything to be in order, they leave you alone!

 

Did you read the OP? If so and you can make that statement you

are a moron. Pointing loaded rifles at someone on their own property

That has commited no crimes and has made no threatening moves.

Yeah that is agression.

 

I have no problems with cops who act like cops and not power mad dbags.

The first cop who visited the Op 2 years ago did his job properly and no one was held at gunpoint.

The cops who visited NJKen also did a good job.

What the 2 swat dbags did is borderline criminal.

 

 

[hardlife_nef 1]

Wow this thread has really blown up. While I expected some of it, some comments I should've but didn't see coming.

 

I pay your salary/I don't work for you personally... Ok this one is in the middle and the original answer for ths one is still valid. While an individual citizens taxes aren't used specifically to pay a salary it does fund the various services, yet doesn't grant said citizen any special right nor supremacy. The moment you bring this up, you've lost any moral high ground you may have had. The moment the leo looks at it from the "your signature isn't on my paycheck", he has lost sight of his purpose which is to steal (as many deptarments adopted) LAs motto to protect and serve. Is it a one sided situation? Yes, but thats the job, not everything is fair. Example is the cashier that has to take customers lip about x product with a smile. Cashier knows they personally didnt do x but has to deal cause its the job. Thats not to say the citizen is always right, but a professional attitude even when the other person is wrong always gives you the moral high ground. You may recall the video of the trooper giving a citizen a ticket and said citizen screaming and yelling while the trooper just stood there and calmly told citizen he'd cite him for littering if he didnt pick up the ticket he just tore up. That is the standard.

 

Did the leos act correctly? Yes and no. I do not know nor do I wish to speculate about premeditation from leo based on the prosecutor being present with a swat team. So just based on the scenario that played out, from a tactical pov it was not well executed just based on what was said and that seems to be based on poor communication. Yes there were weapons present. However it is a call to a location that units have rolled to before from a similar call. I mention this because it is pertinant. How? Well as the team is gearing up theyd want intel on the location and this is something that should come up, especially it being a small town as the op mentioned. Beyond that however bein out in the open leo can plainly see if the subjects were armed. Being they had the superior numbers, approaching with weapons at the low ready was more than adequate as the subjects had complied with leo instructions and were again visably disarmed. Upon reaching the subjects a pat down to ensure they didn't have any concealed weapons is appropiate to ensure the officers safety. But even prior to the pat down the officers should have had one watch th subjects while the others cleared the area around the vehicle, then pat downs. After which you can establish identities and what not. At this point no one should have had a gun in their face nor should have fingers been on the trigger. Once the weapons had been confirmed to not be fa, (though based on the ops statement about mag removal, I dont know how they were able to be satisfied, but thats acwhole different subject) then it is done. There is no suspicion of criminal intent nor probable cause to search the vehicle unless conceded to by the owner. The coping of the sns I feel is questionable as they could have just radioed them in for an instant check. For those confused no one present needed an fid because you dont need one to own a weapon, rather you need to buy. Many have weapons from when they lived in free America.

 

I understand that things would have played out differently had the op advised leo what he was going to do. However he hadnt previously his prior encounter was the polar opposite. Again had he informed different results, but was he obligated to do so? No. Would it have been a courtious? Yes. Here is where it gets tricky, you see some will argue that the way things are and times have changed... Perhaps, but the laws have not. The fact is he was doing something perfectly legal and the responding leos overreacted.

 

Danger is an inherent part of the job period. While the leos safety should be considered (and while it doesnt come into play in this situation) it is the publics safety that is paramount. Thats the job. Yes we all want you to go home safely at the end of your shift, but your safety isnt above the publics that you serve. That is the important distinction. It is my opinion (yes we all have them yes they all stink) that once an officer loses sight of that, then they need to reevaluate their career choice. To the poster that asked if this applied to other careers, the long and short of it is yes, most definately. You see the moment that a fireman is thinking only of his safety he is not effective in his job and places himself and others in harms way. Why because it causes indecision and lack of action which is extremely dangerous. Same for military. I served in combat mos's in both the army and Marines. Ive seen combat and thats just how it is. You act based on training. Acting is making informed choices based on training. Reacting is an emotional response that has no place in these situations.

 

Do people have a negative view of leo? Most no, but those that do mostly have right to. Why? Well many and it seems that daily the number grws, leos have the impression that the badge gives them additional rights. It does not. What do I mean? Well a few examples. Officer a is speeding in his pov, gets pulled over flashes badge might even say I'm on the job. No ticket given. Ive seen no less than 8 times a drunk officer pulled over (still carrying off duty weapon btw) by leo and not arrested, in 5 cases I witnessed was allowed to drive away. This is even extended to family members. You cant convince me based on my person experiance especially when bolstered by others same so in effect leos get upset about us vs them when for the most part they have created this.

 

These are just my $.0002 (adjusted for inflation) so take it for whats its worth. We can argue without fighting. Just dont let your emotions ecome involved, the moment you do it itsnt a discussion nr debate where each side argues their point. It is then a fight that is really a no I didnt yes you did parody. Sorry for spelling damn ipad....

[MarkWVU02 47]

Wow this thread has really blown up. While I expected some of it, some comments I should've but didn't see coming.

 

I pay your salary/I don't work for you personally... Ok this one is in the middle and the original answer for ths one is still valid. While an individual citizens taxes aren't used specifically to pay a salary it does fund the various services, yet doesn't grant said citizen any special right nor supremacy. The moment you bring this up, you've lost any moral high ground you may have had. The moment the leo looks at it from the "your signature isn't on my paycheck", he has lost sight of his purpose which is to steal (as many deptarments adopted) LAs motto to protect and serve. Is it a one sided situation? Yes, but thats the job, not everything is fair. Example is the cashier that has to take customers lip about x product with a smile. Cashier knows they personally didnt do x but has to deal cause its the job. Thats not to say the citizen is always right, but a professional attitude even when the other person is wrong always gives you the moral high ground. You may recall the video of the trooper giving a citizen a ticket and said citizen screaming and yelling while the trooper just stood there and calmly told citizen he'd cite him for littering if he didnt pick up the ticket he just tore up. That is the standard.

 

Did the leos act correctly? Yes and no. I do not know nor do I wish to speculate about premeditation from leo based on the prosecutor being present with a swat team. So just based on the scenario that played out, from a tactical pov it was not well executed just based on what was said and that seems to be based on poor communication. Yes there were weapons present. However it is a call to a location that units have rolled to before from a similar call. I mention this because it is pertinant. How? Well as the team is gearing up theyd want intel on the location and this is something that should come up, especially it being a small town as the op mentioned. Beyond that however bein out in the open leo can plainly see if the subjects were armed. Being they had the superior numbers, approaching with weapons at the low ready was more than adequate as the subjects had complied with leo instructions and were again visably disarmed. Upon reaching the subjects a pat down to ensure they didn't have any concealed weapons is appropiate to ensure the officers safety. But even prior to the pat down the officers should have had one watch th subjects while the others cleared the area around the vehicle, then pat downs. After which you can establish identities and what not. At this point no one should have had a gun in their face nor should have fingers been on the trigger. Once the weapons had been confirmed to not be fa, (though based on the ops statement about mag removal, I dont know how they were able to be satisfied, but thats acwhole different subject) then it is done. There is no suspicion of criminal intent nor probable cause to search the vehicle unless conceded to by the owner. The coping of the sns I feel is questionable as they could have just radioed them in for an instant check. For those confused no one present needed an fid because you dont need one to own a weapon, rather you need to buy. Many have weapons from when they lived in free America.

 

I understand that things would have played out differently had the op advised leo what he was going to do. However he hadnt previously his prior encounter was the polar opposite. Again had he informed different results, but was he obligated to do so? No. Would it have been a courtious? Yes. Here is where it gets tricky, you see some will argue that the way things are and times have changed... Perhaps, but the laws have not. The fact is he was doing something perfectly legal and the responding leos overreacted.

 

Danger is an inherent part of the job period. While the leos safety should be considered (and while it doesnt come into play in this situation) it is the publics safety that is paramount. Thats the job. Yes we all want you to go home safely at the end of your shift, but your safety isnt above the publics that you serve. That is the important distinction. It is my opinion (yes we all have them yes they all stink) that once an officer loses sight of that, then they need to reevaluate their career choice. To the poster that asked if this applied to other careers, the long and short of it is yes, most definately. You see the moment that a fireman is thinking only of his safety he is not effective in his job and places himself and others in harms way. Why because it causes indecision and lack of action which is extremely dangerous. Same for military. I served in combat mos's in both the army and Marines. Ive seen combat and thats just how it is. You act based on training. Acting is making informed choices based on training. Reacting is an emotional response that has no place in these situations.

 

Do people have a negative view of leo? Most no, but those that do mostly have right to. Why? Well many and it seems that daily the number grws, leos have the impression that the badge gives them additional rights. It does not. What do I mean? Well a few examples. Officer a is speeding in his pov, gets pulled over flashes badge might even say I'm on the job. No ticket given. Ive seen no less than 8 times a drunk officer pulled over (still carrying off duty weapon btw) by leo and not arrested, in 5 cases I witnessed was allowed to drive away. This is even extended to family members. You cant convince me based on my person experiance especially when bolstered by others same so in effect leos get upset about us vs them when for the most part they have created this.

 

These are just my $.0002 (adjusted for inflation) so take it for whats its worth. We can argue without fighting. Just dont let your emotions ecome involved, the moment you do it itsnt a discussion nr debate where each side argues their point. It is then a fight that is really a no I didnt yes you did parody. Sorry for spelling damn ipad....

 

Well stated Hardlife