Use of force, from Johnny Fed's perspective...

[Freedom First]

Interesting article of the use of force from a Federal agent. I'll just dump this here for you folks to read but please, do read both the article and the forum he refers to before replying. And please read what he is saying and think on it prior to spouting off. He does have a point and I'd hate for you to miss it.

How to avoid being killed by federal law enforcement. The article

Fight or Flight and Pre-Assault Indicators. The linked forum

I'm not really sure what to say having read this. Interesting perspective. Yeah, that'll do. Interesting.

 

[Maverick9]

I like this quote and I think these days, it's true.

As for “keeping us safe”. My risk of getting killed by a private sector criminal is pretty minimal. My risk of getting killed by a foreign invader is effectively zero. But apparently my risk of getting killed by a Fed is high enough that you feel the need to write this article. Yeah, I feel “safe” with you around.

(bolding mine)

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Ones always has to know what battles are worth fighting and how one is going to fight them.

 

[skidmark]

If we are not doing the same things they are doing - at least as to fight/flight/preassaultive behavior indicator scanning - they we may deserve what suddenly, out of nowhere, lands right in our unprepared lap. That's when dealing with FLEAs, LEOs, or the little old lady who lives down the street from us, as well as those potential BGs that are out there.

"Bob" would like for his job to be as easy as possible. So he write an article that lists the various ways people have gone about making his job not-easy and lists some of the stuff he thinks he can get away with doing to make his job easier. I'm prety sure that without going into the nitpiking detals what he said is fairly accurate. I do not feel the need to try finding out if he was not being accurate for any degree of accuracy.

Fora/discussion boards are probably the worst place to get/give hard fact as hard fact. As soon as you put it out there it becomes your opinion of what may or may not be hard fact, and is open to "discussion" by every yahoo that comes wandering in off the interenet - sometimes decades after the thread seemed to have been put to rest. That being said, the forum provided a good overview of how the academic/technical is translated into operation. Knowledge is power, and being forwarned is being forarmed.

My problem is that the point I seem to be getting from "Bob" is that he is always going to be right, and if he's not right then whatever needs to be done to assure "officer safety" will be done anyhow. But I'm pretty sure the OP was looking for some other lesson to be learned. I missed it - maybe the OP or someone else wioll tell me what it was.

stay safe.

 

[Gil223]

To me, the article seemed to be right on target. Since the possibility of negative contact with a FLEA is fairly remote for most of us, there's no such thing as having too much information about how to keep safe during an encounter with FLEA's. As the old saying goes, "To be forewarned is to be forearmed." Pax...

 

[Maverick9]

To me, the article seemed to be right on target. Since the possibility of negative contact with a FLEA is fairly remote for most of us, there's no such thing as having too much information about how to keep safe during an encounter with FLEA's. As the old saying goes, "To be forewarned is to be forearmed." Pax...

Thing is, I don't think you can 'keep safe' in a FLEA encounter. Note how they pointed an AR automatic weapon at a guy looking out his window in Boston.

In fact this kind of article is unheard of, where in a member of that community is admitting that 1% are maniacs (forget his word). If 10k agents, that's 100 basically psychopaths with a lot of authority.

If he is writing that article publicly, then it must be REALLY BAD in his/those agencies. 20 years ago you'd NEVER have seen anyone air some soiled linen in public, least of all in the papers or online.

 

[Freedom First]

If we are not doing the same things they are doing - at least as to fight/flight/preassaultive behavior indicator scanning - they we may deserve what suddenly, out of nowhere, lands right in our unprepared lap. That's when dealing with FLEAs, LEOs, or the little old lady who lives down the street from us, as well as those potential BGs that are out there.

"Bob" would like for his job to be as easy as possible. So he write an article that lists the various ways people have gone about making his job not-easy and lists some of the stuff he thinks he can get away with doing to make his job easier. I'm prety sure that without going into the nitpiking detals what he said is fairly accurate. I do not feel the need to try finding out if he was not being accurate for any degree of accuracy.

Fora/discussion boards are probably the worst place to get/give hard fact as hard fact. As soon as you put it out there it becomes your opinion of what may or may not be hard fact, and is open to "discussion" by every yahoo that comes wandering in off the interenet - sometimes decades after the thread seemed to have been put to rest. That being said, the forum provided a good overview of how the academic/technical is translated into operation. Knowledge is power, and being forwarned is being forarmed.

My problem is that the point I seem to be getting from "Bob" is that he is always going to be right, and if he's not right then whatever needs to be done to assure "officer safety" will be done anyhow. But I'm pretty sure the OP was looking for some other lesson to be learned. I missed it - maybe the OP or someone else wioll tell me what it was.

stay safe.

Nope, you got it. The assumption I saw was and is, in Bob's mind, that his safety and convenience comes first and your Rights and the specific legalities of the situation come later. And that protesting too strongly will get you killed. And that's fine with "Bob".

The reason I posted this was it makes the point of view of Johnny Fed pretty clear. And in these days with DHS spreading it's new wings, we need to be aware of how the other guy is viewing a confrontation.

 

[Gil223]

... In fact this kind of article is unheard of, where in a member of that community is admitting that 1% are maniacs (forget his word). If 10k agents, that's 100 basically psychopaths with a lot of authority.

If he is writing that article publicly, then it must be REALLY BAD in his/those agencies. 20 years ago you'd NEVER have seen anyone air some soiled linen in public, least of all in the papers or online.

Personally, I think his statistic regarding those with mental/emotional (psychopathic/sociopathic/narcissistic/God complexes, etc.) disorders is somewhat optimistic. It wouldn't surprise me if 2-3% fell into some category identified in the DSM-V, that should disqualify them from positions of armed authority.
Pax...

 

[Citizen]

Funny how law enfarcement can split force continuum into the finest shavings, but somehow can't figure out the 4th Amendment.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

+1

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Funny how law enfarcement can split force continuum into the finest shavings, but somehow can't figure out the 4th Amendment.

+1
Common law the legal system we are supposed to be based upon means nothing to them either. Why would natural rights mean anything to them?

 

[mikeyb]

I dunno... maybe I'm different. I don't think anything "Bob" said was groundbreaking information. Sure, Bob, you can tout the UOF all you want. Law abiding citizens will act accordingly.

Why doesn't Bob write about something more pressing and important. How they are trained with non-legal stops, or 'fishing' stops. The related forum talk seems to be more about amateur body language interpretation.

 

[davidmcbeth]

hey, those are the same techniques I use when confronted with guberment agents when I have committed no crime.

Except that mine is more abbreviated .... I tell them to piss off and if they don't then its not my fault what happens next.