user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
I was interested by this phrase, "And that situation could have worked out in a million different ways.", as though the armed response were some kind of random event, like a thunderstorm. The lightening happened to hit the right bad guy this time.
I really have to wonder why he thinks there could have been a million other possible outcomes. And do any of them have to do with patrons spontaneously combusting?
I also liked this quip:
"Police, with all their training, don't always respond successfully to those situations. Civilians should not make a habit of trying."
First, most folks working as Police don't get much training - only what meets DCJS minimum standards plus whatever their local community is wiling to pay for; I always enjoy the situation where I'm cross-examining a cop in court, and the prosecutor tries to make a big deal out of his expertise derived from his training. It always turns out to be a half-day classroom course taught by some sargent with an overhead projector, and the cop can't answer any questions about what he's supposed to have learned.
So I don't regard that as much of a comparison. I've know a few cops and ex-cops who were really good with firearms, but that's because they enjoyed shooting. Most of 'em have the same approach to the gun as a carpenter does to the hammer.
Secondly, what's up with the term, "civilians"? Like cops aren't "civilians"? Or have the police departments been militarized?
And finally, what about the idea that one might make a "habit" of being a potential victim of acts of violence? I've got a fire extinguisher, but that doesn't mean I have a habit of living in houses that burn down. It does mean that I have learned to use the fire extinguisher in the unlikely event that my house does catch fire.
Is this prosecutor seriously proposing that people should not be prepared to defend themselves if necessary?
He was right about one thing, though, there's no substitute for good training, and everybody ought to get some. And lots of practice, too.
I was interested by this phrase, "And that situation could have worked out in a million different ways.", as though the armed response were some kind of random event, like a thunderstorm. The lightening happened to hit the right bad guy this time.
I really have to wonder why he thinks there could have been a million other possible outcomes. And do any of them have to do with patrons spontaneously combusting?
I also liked this quip:
"Police, with all their training, don't always respond successfully to those situations. Civilians should not make a habit of trying."
First, most folks working as Police don't get much training - only what meets DCJS minimum standards plus whatever their local community is wiling to pay for; I always enjoy the situation where I'm cross-examining a cop in court, and the prosecutor tries to make a big deal out of his expertise derived from his training. It always turns out to be a half-day classroom course taught by some sargent with an overhead projector, and the cop can't answer any questions about what he's supposed to have learned.
So I don't regard that as much of a comparison. I've know a few cops and ex-cops who were really good with firearms, but that's because they enjoyed shooting. Most of 'em have the same approach to the gun as a carpenter does to the hammer.
Secondly, what's up with the term, "civilians"? Like cops aren't "civilians"? Or have the police departments been militarized?
And finally, what about the idea that one might make a "habit" of being a potential victim of acts of violence? I've got a fire extinguisher, but that doesn't mean I have a habit of living in houses that burn down. It does mean that I have learned to use the fire extinguisher in the unlikely event that my house does catch fire.
Is this prosecutor seriously proposing that people should not be prepared to defend themselves if necessary?
He was right about one thing, though, there's no substitute for good training, and everybody ought to get some. And lots of practice, too.
