Heavy Police Response to.... A Tattoo?????

[atvdave]

How did G. Zimmerman get into this conversation? and please don't tell me we are going to rehash that whole roundy-round.

Because it was hornadylnl.... how else would that silly logic be introduced in this thread?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't understand why the police would have to get involved at all, even if it was real he didn't threaten anyone.

I don't understand why people think that 911 callers don't embellish their stories to get a police response.

 

[thebishopp]

How would you expect police to respond to a call of this nature?

Well... back in "the day" police would respond with caution but not with the "rapid dominance" aka "shock and awe" that we see more and more .

Usually an officer and a backup (or just one unit if two man and there isn't a report of any actual shooting going on). Other officers in the area would most likely start "heading that way" to kind of just "orbit" the area while the primaries go check it out. The primaries would park a bit away from the house to assess the situation (as well as avoid being shot at directly from the house). Primaries would cautiously approach the house and knock on the door. What happens from that point on would dictate the response.

Now days... well there is that whole "threat matrix" and out comes SWAT. Of course it is much "safer".

Here is pretty decent article on the "threat matrix":

http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf

This fellow would probably qualify for a SWAT or "SWAT LIKE" response via the "Subject has made threats of violence" and "Firearms are readily available to subject at the location". Of course the fellow could also have a history of problems with police which would also factor in but that information is not in the article.

The problem being of course is that the subject was "REPORTED" to have made threats of violence and was "REPORTED" to have a firearm. The "matrix" (or at least this one which may differ from agency to agency though I would suspect they would all be pretty similar) of course says "has" and "are" but I am not sure how many can or do differentiate between a "reported" offense versus one that has in fact actually occurred and operate solely on the assumption that the "report" is "fact".

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well... back in "the day" police would respond with caution but not with the "rapid dominance" aka "shock and awe" that we see more and more .

Usually an officer and a backup (or just one unit if two man and there isn't a report of any actual shooting going on). Other officers in the area would most likely start "heading that way" to kind of just "orbit" the area while the primaries go check it out. The primaries would park a bit away from the house to assess the situation (as well as avoid being shot at directly from the house). Primaries would cautiously approach the house and knock on the door. What happens from that point on would dictate the response.

Now days... well there is that whole "threat matrix" and out comes SWAT. Of course it is much "safer".

"Back in the day," people weren't

-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them


...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"Back in the day," people weren't

-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them


...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.

Sure, go on all day if you want, but over the last 20 years gun crime rate has went down, reporting on it repeatedly on 1000's of news stories has gone up though.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sure, go on all day if you want, but over the last 20 years gun crime rate has went down, reporting on it repeatedly on 1000's of news stories has gone up though.

I'm betting the incarceration rate has gone up.
Is a gun required to be violent?

 

[Whosyer]

"Back in the day," people weren't

-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them


...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.

I think that many things similar to those you mentioned occurred, people just didn't have the instant access to a media that bombards us with news of these events. Do a Google search on Harlan County Wars, Bath Michigan Schoolhouse, Saint Valentines Day Massacre, Texas Clock Tower. That's just a few off the top of my head.

 

[thebishopp]

I think that many things similar to those you mentioned occurred, people just didn't have the instant access to a media that bombards us with news of these events. Do a Google search on Harlan County Wars, Bath Michigan Schoolhouse, Saint Valentines Day Massacre, Texas Clock Tower. That's just a few off the top of my head.

Thank you You beat me to it and there are quite a few more. A simple google of school shootings pulls up school shootings going back past 2000. We've also had several acts of "terrorism" including "domestic terrorism" prior to 9/11 and yes they did "blow up federal buildings" (TM and the 93 WTC bombing comes to mind). Of course 9/11 was just the "big one". I am not sure about the "could look at their kids and put fear in them" line though.... that kind of struck me as odd and am not sure what to compare that too as that would apply "back then" as it does "today". Also the whole people are more "stupid" today.... hard to say if that is true or not and it is a double edged statement because if people in general are more "stupid" that would apply to EVERYONE even those in the law enforcement profession.


- and by back in the day I am not even referring to that long ago. I'd say from 2000 and back which makes sense because I have heard the "9/11 changed things" as justification for a lot of "stupid" things.

 

[thebishopp]

I'm betting the incarceration rate has gone up.
Is a gun required to be violent?

Actually:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/u...ing-new-approach-to-crime.html?pagewanted=all

Not really that impressive in my opinion but a small decline.

More importantly and much more relevant since you mention "violent" (of course a gun isn't required to be "violent" but "violence" is)... is that there are quite a large number of people imprisoned for "non-violent" offenses. Nearly 3/4ths of the total in fact.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think that many things similar to those you mentioned occurred, people just didn't have the instant access to a media that bombards us with news of these events. Do a Google search on Harlan County Wars, Bath Michigan Schoolhouse, Saint Valentines Day Massacre, Texas Clock Tower. That's just a few off the top of my head.

Bath Michigan Schoolhouse 1927 -44
St Valentine's Day Massacre 1929- 7
Harland County War 1931-11
Texas Clock Tower 1966-16

39 years, Total-78


2007 Cho 32
2009 J. wong 13
2009 Hasan 13
2010 McClendon 10
2012 Page 6
2012 James Holmes -12
2012 Peter Lanza -27
2013 Aaron Alexis -12

7 years, Total-125

The St V's Massacre was mob related, so I'm not sure that applies. Similarly the Coal Wars wouldn't really apply either, as that was a conflict. Conversely, Hasan could be removed because I think his was a politically motivated act of terrorism.

And the modern instances I posted are the ones that were sensationalized. In 2006 Desmond Turner murdered 7 people, and that's not even typically counted, even though it matches the St V's Massacre.

 

[thebishopp]

Bath Michigan Schoolhouse 1927 -44
St Valentine's Day Massacre 1929- 7
Harland County War 1931-11
Texas Clock Tower 1966-16

39 years, Total-78


2007 Cho 32
2009 J. wong 13
2009 Hasan 13
2010 McClendon 10
2012 Page 6
2012 James Holmes -12
2012 Peter Lanza -27
2013 Aaron Alexis -12

7 years, Total-125

The St V's Massacre was mob related, so I'm not sure that applies. Similarly the Coal Wars wouldn't really apply either, as that was a conflict. Conversely, Hasan could be removed because I think his was a politically motivated act of terrorism.

And the modern instances I posted are the ones that were sensationalized. In 2006 Desmond Turner murdered 7 people, and that's not even typically counted, even though it matches the St V's Massacre.

You have to include the V day massacre even though it is "mob related" - they were criminals after all and violent ones. Same as any of the other ones listed. Motivations may be different but principle is the same.

Here is a better breakdown of mass "shootings" since 1982:

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

As you can see there were quite a few of them. Several with numbers at or near the post 9/11 numbers. I will concede that "Cho" holds the "record" at 33 killed.


In addition you can't simply disregard statistics that point to a decrease in violent crime. In fact 2010 they were 1/3 the of what they were in 1994 (when I was on the job) and have continued to decline since. Ironically that procedure I mentioned is how we were trained and that was when violent crime was higher than it is today.

FBI Statistics: Major Violent Crime Rate's Dramatic Reduction
U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year - CNN.com

 

[Kutnupe14]

You have to include the V day massacre even though it is "mob related" - they were criminals after all and violent ones. Same as any of the other ones listed. Motivations may be different but principle is the same.

Here is a better breakdown of mass "shootings" since 1982:

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

As you can see there were quite a few of them. Several with numbers at or near the post 9/11 numbers. I will concede that "Cho" holds the "record" at 33 killed.


In addition you can't simply disregard statistics that point to a decrease in violent crime. In fact 2010 they were 1/3 the of what they were in 1994 (when I was on the job) and have continued to decline since. Ironically that procedure I mentioned is how we were trained and that was when violent crime was higher than it is today.

FBI Statistics: Major Violent Crime Rate's Dramatic Reduction
U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year - CNN.com

See, here's my issue. That list is incomplete. Who doesn't remember that piece of trash Turner, and the 7 people he killed (I remember because my mom taught some of those kids). Why isn't that listed on the list? Apparently, for some reason, that not considered a mass murder. Is it possible that someone is "cooking the books?"

 

[thebishopp]

See, here's my issue. That list is incomplete. Who doesn't remember that piece of trash Turner, and the 7 people he killed (I remember because my mom taught some of those kids). Why isn't that listed on the list? Apparently, for some reason, that not considered a mass murder. Is it possible that someone is "cooking the books?"

The hamilton ave murders in 06? Looking at the spreadsheet it seems their focus is on mass killings where the criminal's motivation was more of a mental health issue whereas in the hamilton case the motive appears to be robbery. Which means any mass killings where the perpetrator was the more "traditional" criminal were left out (this would also include serial killers probably because they didn't kill a lot of people at once, instead spreading it out over time).

 

[Denny347]

Is the "high powered rifle" thing anything like those who think that a man with gun call should never be made but a 17 year old black kid wearing a hoodie and has not been witnessed as committing a crime should be called in and followed?

 

[Denny347]

Sure, go on all day if you want, but over the last 20 years gun crime rate has went down, reporting on it repeatedly on 1000's of news stories has gone up though.

It's relative. Nationwide, gun crime has gone down. Sadly, there are towns, cities where the reverse it true. Gun crime going down nationally does not make the residents in my area feel any safer as houses, cars, kids, adults get shot every day.

 

[Kagnew]

So, has "hornydildo" (or whatever his name is) gone into the tree-trimming business?

 

[hornadylnl]

So, has "hornydildo" (or whatever his name is) gone into the tree-trimming business?

Are you 6?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are you 6?

Don't forget the half

 

[jbombelli]

"Back in the day," people weren't

-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them


...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.

NOW THIS is why I don't have anybody on my ignore list, ever. How could I possibly pass up a chance to respond to something like this? It's predicated on the obviously false belief that only recently have people started being ***** to each other.


Let me address those points one at a time.

Yes, they were just as stupid.
Yes, school shootings have been happening for a long time.
People have always killed each other over stupid ****.
Ever since spears were invented there have been people who killed others from range. There's even a word for it ... we call them "snipers."
Yes, people did blow up federal buildings. Other buildings too. And river boats. And banks. All kinds of places.
True, crashing large planes into buildings was a new one.
They sniped people in other places. Again, we call them "snipers."
You should check out abused kids sometime if you think people can't look at their kids today and put fear into them.


I could go on all day.

People are no worse now than they've ever been. There's just more of us, so there are more ********, and we hear about these things more readily and easily than ever before.

 

[atvdave]

Update....

He's back in the news... this time with a real gun & drugs...


Michael Smith had gun tattoo and real gun in waistband