Neenah PD take on OC.

[MKEgal]

Maybe I'm off base here but I get a bad vibe of anti police from some folks on this forum... when I "enforced" things for Uncle Sam, I was ready to kill any mf'er I ran into, until I knew otherwise... I just think some people have a chip on their shoulder a bit but then accuse the LEO's of the same thing.

Problem is, too many LEOs have the same (or similar) attitude as stated there.
You wouldn't call being ready to kill whoever you run into 'having a chip on your shoulder'?
I would.

If I were constantly ready to kill my employer, I think s/he'd pick up on it & at the very least would not like me. Probably I'd lose my job in short order. An officer who regards all citizen contacts as potential death traps is a) off the deep end and b) going to lose a job.

Having the "you're all enemies" attitude toward citizens (whom police are supposed to serve & protect, at least in aggregate) makes for bad encounters. Illegal interactions, even. Those can get costly, both monetarily and in public good will.

Knowing that the vast majority of the populace is benign to neutral toward police, why would an officer go about antagonizing them until they're fed up (like so many of us are)?

Antagonize people by having warrantless stops, searches, etc., whether for supposed DUI (& whatever else they can find while they have you stopped) or OC or walking while black or ... and see how long before public opinion makes it so much harder for an officer to work.

OTOH, officers who patrol neighborhoods, talk with people, make themselves "real", stop small crimes, occasionally get help from the citizens to stop larger ones.

 

[Zeus]

I would like to know, how many times, if ever, has a bad guy or active shooter called in a threat before walking into a school, public building or mall and started a rampage. You know how they always lock down schools adjacent to the affected place and evac the area that receives the threat? So a wacko calls in a threat and they evac everyone and close school for the day, right? Well the next day they usually go back to business as usual. Does that mean if someone calls in a threat and then decides to go on a spree the next day or a week later, the police are not held accountable? I guess the point I am trying to make (maybe somewhat poorly trying to make) is, if someone is going to shoot up a place, they just go there and start shooting, they don't call the cops or the school or whatever and tell them, "Hey I'm coming over to shoot a bunch of people in a few minutes." So wth do they do lock downs or evacuations? It has to be just to cover their ass, correct? I just don't understand the logic, if someone calls in MWAG and the dispatcher says, "Is the man holding the gun in his hand and shooting people?" and they say "No, he's sitting drinking coffee." then you would think that would be the end of it.

 

[Trip20]

So wth do they do lock downs or evacuations? It has to be just to cover their ass, correct?

If there was an armed bank robbery next to a school and my kid was attending class at said school, I'd damn sure want them evacuating or on lockdown since they won't let me in with my AR15 to protect him myself.

Do you really think the purpose for do this stuff to cover their ass or are you just ranting here?

 

[Zeus]

No, I'm not ranting, just seriously wondering how many times if any, someone called in a threat and then carried out the action referred to in the threat. It just doesn't seem like someone who wants to do something like that would let them know they are going to do it, therefore it would seem people who call in threats are just looking to see the reaction it gets for entertainment or something. A bank robbery scenario I could understand because the perp might flee to a nearby building etc. , I get that. But if someone just calls in a threat saying they are going to shoot someone, why a lock down? It could be an hour, a day or a week later for all they know. What's the statute of limitations on how long the lock down should be or what the level of response should be. Maybe my question is just too vague? Maybe I've had too much coffee, I don't know

 

[AaronS]

No, I'm not ranting, just seriously wondering how many times if any, someone called in a threat and then carried out the action referred to in the threat. It just doesn't seem like someone who wants to do something like that would let them know they are going to do it, therefore it would seem people who call in threats are just looking to see the reaction it gets for entertainment or something. A bank robbery scenario I could understand because the perp might flee to a nearby building etc. , I get that. But if someone just calls in a threat saying they are going to shoot someone, why a lock down? It could be an hour, a day or a week later for all they know. What's the statute of limitations on how long the lock down should be or what the level of response should be. Maybe my question is just too vague? Maybe I've had too much coffee, I don't know

I think I understand what you are getting at. If I am correct, I would tent to agree with you.
If I were to go on a bank job, I don't think calling ahead would work very well for me. The same goes with bomb, or other threats. If I call you to let you know what I am going to try to do, I would think I would never get the chance to do it. I would think you would be waiting for me at that point.
Anyway I would think that for the most part the doors to most schools are or should be locked. I for one, would feel much better knowing a few teachers had a way to protect the kids if some bad stuff did go down. I don't understand why teachers can not carry firearms in class... Locking the doors is a good first step, but we need to do more to try and keep our kids safe at school. After all, what happens if you go into "lock down" with the bad guy inside?

 

[Trip20]

No, I'm not ranting, just seriously wondering how many times if any, someone called in a threat and then carried out the action referred to in the threat. It just doesn't seem like someone who wants to do something like that would let them know they are going to do it, therefore it would seem people who call in threats are just looking to see the reaction it gets for entertainment or something. A bank robbery scenario I could understand because the perp might flee to a nearby building etc. , I get that. But if someone just calls in a threat saying they are going to shoot someone, why a lock down? It could be an hour, a day or a week later for all they know. What's the statute of limitations on how long the lock down should be or what the level of response should be. Maybe my question is just too vague? Maybe I've had too much coffee, I don't know

It's simple.

The price is too grave were the threat carried out and no action taken to stop it.

Again, put your kid in a building. Now a man uses a cell phone to call authorities to advise he wants to shoot up the place and kill everyone inside. It's precisely because the cops do not know when it will occur that they have to act immediately. If you can honestly tell me you think they should not lock that building down until they can determine if everything is OK, then you're on a whole other wave length than me.

Hell, lets say a guy called YOUR HOUSE and said he wants to shoot it up and kill everyone inside. You know darn well you'd take some precautions. In addition to calling the police, I'd make sure all my doors/windows were locked, and I'd be monitoring the traffic outside my home to see who looks suspicious. So I don't buy that you don't understand why authorities react as they do.

 

[JerryD]

I would invite them over for tea and crumpets, most people who make threats don't have the intestinal fortitude to carry them out.

 

[Zeus]

That's a very good analogy Trip. I definitely don't want anything to happen to mine or anyone's kids for that matter and I would feel best if the teachers were all armed and the doors were locked when school started as Aaron suggests. Interesting article here today though- http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/education/gillett-school-district-on-high-alert They interestingly chose to go without the lock down. I guess it's just a case by case basis. Good discussion and good points by all.