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
share