My Thoughts About the Cops


Most people are posting negative comments about the cops, with the main reaction being "How can they just stand around and not go in to rescue the girls?"

I have some thoughts and comments about that.

1. Hindsight is 20-20. So, of course, Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do, after all the facts are in.

2. My understanding is that the cops followed proper protocol (whatever that is). I am sure that proper protocols are instituted for a reason. And there is good reason (and expectation) that the cops follow these protocols. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. But, the people who really "know" about this stuff - and have expertise in this field - say that police followed proper protocol. So who are we, in the general public, to think that we know better than experts in the field?

3. The Police Commissioner (or Town Manager?) praised the cops and said that "it could have been worse". While his comments seemed insensitive, I also think that they were misinterpreted. I think he was saying "Thank God my officers caught these two scum bags right away". He wasn't saying "Well, even though three women were raped and murdered, I guess it could have been worse".

4. I don't believe that cops can just go barge in, Rambo-style, during a hostage crisis. Think about it. If they did, that would probably agitate the criminals (hostage-takers) even more. And it would probably prompt the hostage-takers to kill the hostages, when they otherwise might not have.

5. It is my understanding that Dr. Petit himself had high praise for the police department. I think that speaks volumes.

Thanks.





reply

If their presence is conveyed to the hostage takers maybe the protocol should be to pick up the phone. Your reasoned rationalizations lead to cops emptying their weapons into situations that makes things worse. Your like the jury who watched the Rodney King beating and bought the explanation that it was a controlled use of force since he clearly was still moving,er, resisting. I find your mindset frightening. Great job Brownie! Stick a flag in this pile and claim victory. How much koolaid do you drink? Protocol is what you call it.

reply

Thanks for the intelligent response.

reply

To sit outside of a home while women are raped and murdered inside is outrageous by anyone, let alone people who's job it is to help us.
I cannot think of any way to justify their incompetence..
Heartbreaking to think that maybe the victims knew salvation was right outside the door but never came..

reply

Did you even read a word of my post?

What exactly would be your counter-arguments to the points I made?

Specific counter-arguments.

Not a vague, emotional response like: "How could cops just stand around while people are getting killed?"

Thanks.

I look forward to your reply.

reply

I have some thoughts and comments about that.

1. Hindsight is 20-20. So, of course, Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do, after all the facts are in.

It doesn't take hindsight to know that if there are hostages inside with criminals and you are in sight of the criminals then you should at least make some attempt to communicate with them - use a phone or a bullhorn.

2. My understanding is that the cops followed proper protocol (whatever that is). I am sure that proper protocols are instituted for a reason. And there is good reason (and expectation) that the cops follow these protocols. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. But, the people who really "know" about this stuff - and have expertise in this field - say that police followed proper protocol. So who are we, in the general public, to think that we know better than experts in the field?

experts in all careers do not know everything, no one is infallible. questioning is the only way to see where there are errors in the protocol and correct them. blindly stating it was protocol like that stops any arguments is ignorant of the police. They could have at least answered some of the questions the general public had. failing to resound indicates there was something they were trying to hide.

3. The Police Commissioner (or Town Manager?) praised the cops and said that "it could have been worse". While his comments seemed insensitive, I also think that they were misinterpreted. I think he was saying "Thank God my officers caught these two scum bags right away". He wasn't saying "Well, even though three women were raped and murdered, I guess it could have been worse".

It was the mayor; politics man, what else is he going to say??

4. I don't believe that cops can just go barge in, Rambo-style, during a hostage crisis. Think about it. If they did, that would probably agitate the criminals (hostage-takers) even more. And it would probably prompt the hostage-takers to kill the hostages, when they otherwise might not have.

they could have helped dr petit as he escaped, they could have gone into the house once the killers left, they could've called to spoken on the bullhorn to find out what else the criminals wanted.

5. It is my understanding that Dr. Petit himself had high praise for the police department. I think that speaks volumes.

He was a man in grief and invested in his own town and its support of him. I don't believe he would really believe that the police were above reproach even if he did say something positive.

reply

So, in other words, random people on internet chat boards know more about "proper police protocol" than experts in the field. Correct?

reply

um no.
don't be so condescending and presume that you can sum up my responses.
i showed you the courtesy of responding as you asked so cut the rudeness thanks.
in your words - did you even read a word of my post?

reply

Hi. I was not being rude or disrespectful, and I apologize if that's the impression you got.

My question was actually genuine and sincere. It was not meant to be rude or condescending.

Your above reply (point-by-point) was indeed a respectful and well thought-out post. And I appreciated the input.

However, after reading the entire thing, my "take-away" message was exactly what I had asked about.

After reading your entire post, I was left with the impression that the position that you advocated was - in paraphrase - that the police didn't know what they were doing and that they botched things up. And that random people posting on internet chat boards (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) would know better than law enforcement experts about how to have handled the situation.

All of this is premised by some belief that a large number of police officers would just go to the scene and casually "hang around", knowing (and being unconcerned) that people were being killed right before their eyes.

To me, that makes no sense whatsoever.

I would suspect that those police officers were pained about their situation and, doing exactly what they were supposed to do, were awaiting the orders from those higher-up in the chain of command.

That's how police work works.

Some random officer on the scene doesn't just do whatever he "feels" like doing. That would clearly risk the lives of the victims, the general citizenry (e.g., the nearby neighbors), and his fellow officers. So, what does he do? He awaits word from his superiors.

Also, don't forget: a "low level" officer on the scene does not know what information the superior has at his disposal. It could very well be the case that the superior (who is making the decisions) has more information about the situation than does the "lower level" officer on the scene.

An active crime scene is not the time for theoretical and academic discussions and debates. It's a time for action. And that action is predicated on the superiors knowing/getting the best possible information (available to them at the time) and for the inferiors to follow the commands of the superiors.

No police officer can just "go off on his own" and say: "Well, screw what the Police Chief says. I feel morally obliged to just run in and see what I can do to help." And then he runs in blind into a situation.

Police work does not work that way. And, back to proper police procedures and protocols. That's exactly why we have them.

And my suspicion is that they (proper police procedures and protocols) were likely instituted by experts in law enforcement who likely have 10, 20, 30+ years of work experience in the field.

As opposed to random internet chat board posters, who tend to think that they are "experts" in everything, once they are handed all the facts with 20/20 hindsight.

Tell me this: honestly ... why do you think an officer would just "sit there" and do nothing, while he hears and knows (if even that's the case) that others are being killed in the house? What is the most reasonable answer to that question, the answer that makes the most sense?

ALSO:

What if some "rogue" officer did indeed just barge in? Let's say that he acted upon his emotion and ignored direct orders from his superiors? (Well, first of all, he would be fired.) More importantly, however, what would the internet chat board posters then complain about?

Let's say that the "rogue" (for lack of a better word) officer went in and made the situation worse? He encounters the criminals. The criminals are irrational, impulsive, and not thinking straight (as, I am sure, most criminals are). And who knows what drugs they are on? And who knows what weapons they do or don't have? And who knows what they are doing with the hostages? And who knows what their intentions are? Etc. Etc. Etc. These are all unanswered questions and unknowns at the time.

So, the criminals are all pissed off that the police officer has "barged in", so they just point-blank start shooting the hostages in the head, ambushing the officer and shooting him in the head, etc.

Then, what do you think the random internet chat board posters would be complaining about? "Oh, why was that officer so stupid as to barge in like that?" "Why did that officer ignore proper police procedures and protocols?" "Why didn't that officer follow orders and do what his superiors told him to do?" "That officer should be fired." "He jeopardized the lives of those hostages." "If he didn’t act so stupidly, maybe those hostages would still be alive." Etc. Etc. Etc. That is exactly what the random general member of the public would be outraged about. Once again, after (of course) they have all the facts handed to them on a silver platter in 20/20 hindsight.

So, the bottom line is: "everybody" out there thinks that they are an expert and thinks that they know everything, when they are sitting away in the luxury of their living room, typing away on on a computer. They are far removed from reality, and usually don't have a clue. That is why they are called "Monday morning quarterbacks". And, typically, they are not part of the solution, but are part of the problem.

Thanks.

PS: These responses are not necessarily all directed to you personally. But, rather, to those other posters who criticize the police, while not knowing the "whole story". And, just lashing out of anger and emotion, without offering any real or realistic solutions.

Thanks again.

And, again, my first post was not meant to be condescending or rude. It was a genuine question that I had for you.

reply

Didn't they set fire to the house shortly after the police came onto the scene and as such even begin to have a chance to assess the situation before the whole thing went sideways?

reply