(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?

And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.

That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.

The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.

The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.

If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.

Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

I thought after the shooting at the gay club, we wanted everyone carrying guns?

I feel like the general population feels like cops are not allowed to use lethal force until after they've been shot at... and that's not the case.

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I thought after the shooting at the gay club, we wanted everyone carrying guns?

Legally.

Mr. Sterling had been convicted of multiple felonies.

(07-06-2016 04:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I thought after the shooting at the gay club, we wanted everyone carrying guns?

Legally.

Mr. Sterling had been convicted of multiple felonies.

Which due to being a felon under disability AND due to the drug convictions, AND due to the domestic abuse conviction means he was one of those bad guys with a gun we often hear about.

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?

And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.

That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.

The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.

The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.

If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.

Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't think for the others but we were told to do our jobs but to not commit suicide if it's a lost cause. For instance, if you're fighting a fire on an aircraft and it's obvious that there are no survivors you do not risk your life to save a dead person. Simple, huh?

And even then if it's next to "impossible" to save that person you're told to worry about yourself first, a dead firefighter does no one any good.

That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.

The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.

The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.

If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.

Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

I've taken several swiftwater rescue courses as a kayaker and the priorities are very similar (obviously I understand I wasn't signing on as a professional): 1. Yourself, 2. Fellow rescuers, 3. Paddling party, 4. Bystanders & other paddlers not in your party, 5. Victim.

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.

The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.

The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.

If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.

Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

My sneaking suspicion is that he may be (or was) in a line of work closer to this particular issue than you are.

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  That is different than the primary mission being to get home every day.

The primary mission on D-Day was to run directly into machine gun fire and take the freaking beach. Rightly so.

The primary mission of police is public safety....not personal safety.

If it were personal safety then they would not leave the station.

Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

It has to be. A dead or crippled fireman can't put out a fire or save anyone.

(07-06-2016 04:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

My sneaking suspicion is that he may be (or was) in a line of work closer to this particular issue than you are.

That does not exempt him from plain logic.

If your primary mission is personal safety...then going into burning buildings is not the proper method for securing that particular primary mission.

What is your main mission?
My personal safety.

How will you accomplish it?
Go through a fire, rescue a baby drowning in a whirlpool, stop an armed robber, and patrol Baghdad.

Are you just a bad personal safety planner or are you just fooling yourself about your mission?

Just trying to pin people down here on their thinking.

(07-06-2016 04:45 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Whatever it is you do for a living stick with it and never go into the public safety field because with your attitude the only people who are going to benefit is going to be the folks who sell the black elastic mourning bands we wear on our badges.

Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

It has to be. A dead or crippled fireman can't put out a fire or save anyone.

Neither can a fireman who's primary mission is avoiding danger.

(07-06-2016 02:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:27 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Nope, not under questioning. Maybe his view was blocked.

Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

No. What the dispatcher told them has more meaning.

Why? The dispatcher isnt even a witness to what is happening.

(07-06-2016 05:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:27 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps not but that is still what a witness claims he saw.

Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

No. What the dispatcher told them has more meaning.

Why? The dispatcher isnt even a witness to what is happening.

Because the police were not a witness to what prompted the call. Dam dude I know you are in there Fit, I know somewhere in your head there is a logic 101 button, press it.

(07-06-2016 05:31 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 05:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:27 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Flashbacks to witness "hands up don't shoot" crap. When will people learn that an eye witness can't always be trusted?

Does that also apply to the person who witnessed someone being threatened with a gun?

No. What the dispatcher told them has more meaning.

Why? The dispatcher isnt even a witness to what is happening.

Because the police were not a witness to what prompted the call. Dam dude I know you are in there Fit, I know somewhere in your head there is a logic 101 button, press it.

Exactly. The police did not witness so they have no idea who has a gun. Someone who was there said that he never went for a gun.

(07-06-2016 04:59 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Go sit in the basement wrapped in bubble wrap. Its very, very, safe.

Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

My sneaking suspicion is that he may be (or was) in a line of work closer to this particular issue than you are.

That does not exempt him from plain logic.

If your primary mission is personal safety...then going into burning buildings is not the proper method for securing that particular primary mission.

What is your main mission?
My personal safety.

How will you accomplish it?
Go through a fire, rescue a baby drowning in a whirlpool, stop an armed robber, and patrol Baghdad.

Are you just a bad personal safety planner or are you just fooling yourself about your mission?

Just trying to pin people down here on their thinking.

Your problem is you only see it in black and white because you are making a decision from a position of ignorance. While you may think that a standard house fire is dangerous but for someone like me with decades of training and experience with structural firefighting that danger is greatly lessened.

There's this groundbreaking concept called risk management assessment. It's something we do to make the decision how best to handle the incident we are sent to. It actually starts before the call comes in as you should have been conducting pre-incident surveys of your response area all along. Learn what kind of buildings you have in your area, how they are constructed, how good of a water supply you have in an area, etc. Then when the call comes in you add in the information dispatch is able to provide and you start assessing the incident while enroute to the call. When you arrive on scene while your crew is getting things set up you do a 360 degree exterior survey (if you have a good Engineer you can knock out 1/2 of it just by where he parks the apparatus) to attempt to determine the scope of the fire, identify any possible hazards, etc. As you go you shut off any utilities you can as you go to minimize risk. Once you have completed your survey you make the determination if your crew, using their protective equipment and training, can make entry in as advantageous a situation as possible. If the odds are you are going to get someone hurt making entry you bust out some windows and "fight it hard from the yard" or what we call a defensive attack. If the odds are you aren't going to get someone hurt you then you go inside. You never put yourself or your crew in a situation where you are definitely going to get someone hurt.

And if personal protection isn't the primary goal for the military then explain why we spend billions of dollars on body armor, armored vehicles, mine detection equipment, etc. and countless hours teaching our troops to low crawl, dig fox holes, build bunkers, etc.

Ali A. Akbar ‏@ali 27s27 seconds ago Baton Rouge, LA
I'm in tears. God bless the south. These protestors refuse to cave in to #blacklivesmatter tactics. This is huge.

(07-06-2016 12:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 12:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 12:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Salamoni and Lake (police officers) had responded to a disturbance call in which the caller said someone had been threatening him with a gun, police told the news station.

Baton Rouge Police have released few details about the shooting, including whether Sterling was armed. But a witness told The Advocate that Sterling did have a gun, but was not holding it or reaching for his pockets during the incident.

Sterling was a registered sex offender, state records show. He was convicted in 2000 of carnal knowledge of a juvenile and was released from prison in 2004. Details of that case were not immediately available.

Sterling also had convictions for aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, unauthorized entry and domestic abuse battery, The Advocate reports. He was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and carrying an illegal weapon with a controlled dangerous substance.

So he was a felon under disability. Did he have a gun on him or not?

Honest question. If he did have a gun on him, does it matter legally if he was reaching for it or not?

He was a convicted felon. If he had a firearm?... he had it illegally. He had 17 prior arrests and was a ex con. He was not a choirboy at one time. It does look like he had stayed out of trouble since his release. I would think that having a firearm alone in his pocket was not grounds for the use of deadly force. I would think he would have to be in the process of reaching for it to justify that. You can clearly hear one of the officers say..."He has a gun!!!!" just before the shots were fired. Looks like either he was going for the pistol or the cop just panicked. Hard to say what happened from the videos being released.

Ali A. Akbar ‏@ali 8m8 minutes ago Baton Rouge, LA
#BlackLivesMatter has been rebuked by black leaders and family here at #AltonSterling vigil.

(07-06-2016 05:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:59 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 04:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Get a better argument because it's obvious you are clueless on this one.

Besides, I retired a few years ago from injuries received in large part from a career of firefighting, and that's WITH my #1 goal when I walked in the station each shift being that when my shift ended I went home alive and with every body part I came in with. People who came into the fire service with your attitude didn't last long. They either crippled themselves early on taking risks trying to be a hero, got the hint after being shunned by their coworkers because they were dangerous, or were fired because they refused to follow procedures.

As it was taught to me in my leadership training your priorities as an officer in the fire service are in this order: 1. Your personal safety 2. The safety of your crew 3. The safety of the general public. Nobody ever called the fire department because they did something smart so don't compound the stupidity by taking unnecessary risks.

If your primary mission is staying safe...

stay...at...home.

What is the controversy here.

Home...is safer....than a burning building. Primary mission accomplished.

What is your argument with that?

My sneaking suspicion is that he may be (or was) in a line of work closer to this particular issue than you are.

That does not exempt him from plain logic.

If your primary mission is personal safety...then going into burning buildings is not the proper method for securing that particular primary mission.

What is your main mission?
My personal safety.

How will you accomplish it?
Go through a fire, rescue a baby drowning in a whirlpool, stop an armed robber, and patrol Baghdad.

Are you just a bad personal safety planner or are you just fooling yourself about your mission?

Just trying to pin people down here on their thinking.

Your problem is you only see it in black and white because you are making a decision from a position of ignorance. While you may think that a standard house fire is dangerous but for someone like me with decades of training and experience with structural firefighting that danger is greatly lessened.

There's this groundbreaking concept called risk management assessment. It's something we do to make the decision how best to handle the incident we are sent to. It actually starts before the call comes in as you should have been conducting pre-incident surveys of your response area all along. Learn what kind of buildings you have in your area, how they are constructed, how good of a water supply you have in an area, etc. Then when the call comes in you add in the information dispatch is able to provide and you start assessing the incident while enroute to the call. When you arrive on scene while your crew is getting things set up you do a 360 degree exterior survey (if you have a good Engineer you can knock out 1/2 of it just by where he parks the apparatus) to attempt to determine the scope of the fire, identify any possible hazards, etc. As you go you shut off any utilities you can as you go to minimize risk. Once you have completed your survey you make the determination if your crew, using their protective equipment and training, can make entry in as advantageous a situation as possible. If the odds are you are going to get someone hurt making entry you bust out some windows and "fight it hard from the yard" or what we call a defensive attack. If the odds are you aren't going to get someone hurt you then you go inside. You never put yourself or your crew in a situation where you are definitely going to get someone hurt.

And if personal protection isn't the primary goal for the military then explain why we spend billions of dollars on body armor, armored vehicles, mine detection equipment, etc. and countless hours teaching our troops to low crawl, dig fox holes, build bunkers, etc.

There is a damn difference between lessening danger.....and your primary mission being to avoid danger.

I have a friend who volunteered to deploy to Baghdad. While he was there he tried to lessen danger....but that was NOT his primary mission. If it had been....volunteering to go to Baghdad was contrary to that in and of itself.

You can also improve officer safety by immediately shooting every potentially dangerous person you encounter. If that's actually the mission...why not do that? Because it ain't actually the mission.

Now I have had a police friend tell me his primary mission was to come home every night....and people in this thread tell me the same thing. But that's not the mission taxpayers are paying for.

This whole discussion highlights what I am saying. Police are increasingly trained that the primary mission is "officer safety" and that "officer safety" justifies whatever they do. This is putting them at odds with more and more of the public who think they are being treated like a potentially dangerous enemy rather than citizens.

That thinking destroys community trust, respect, support, and cooperation...and THAT is what really makes officers unsafe.

Dude just stop.