(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

I'm not. It was only confusing because the guy was so impatient in responding/complying that he jerkingly complied (when he did). The cop gave him chance after chance...

If the cop had just explained his concern about you having your hands behind your back, and you had your hands behind your back and the cop said, put your hands where I can see them... would you pull them out quickly? If he said, get to your knees, would you 'hop' to your knees?

It's horrible to be sure, but the cop even asked if he was drunk and he said no.

Of course, part of the problem could be the uneducated and person looking to make a point about guns and gun owners who calls and reports something entirely benign as a 'potential terrorist act'.

We don't really know what happened, only what the cops were told...

and the woman was able to comply with little trouble.

There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

you're wrong based on vid evidence.....she complied per the instructions (even when she whined and was told to shut the **** up).....

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

nobody is arguing that.....there's no question they need to revisit how to engage that scenario.....IMO two officers wasn't enough......

the argument is when an officer is trained to do a specific duty and has to react as req'd based on what happens up to that point.....

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

Since you have it all figured out, time to share your knowledge

https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/m...nitiesJobs

Need to hurry though....job closes Monday the 18th at 2359hrs

(12-11-2017 06:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

Since you have it all figured out, time to share your knowledge

https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/m...nitiesJobs

Need to hurry though....job closes Monday the 18th at 2359hrs

I could say the same for you. Disappointed you don't want a debate and revert to this.

(12-11-2017 06:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

nobody is arguing that.....there's no question they need to revisit how to engage that scenario.....IMO two officers wasn't enough......

the argument is when an officer is trained to do a specific duty and has to react as req'd based on what happens up to that point.....

Remember the report was a man with a rifle, not a handgun.

(12-11-2017 07:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

Since you have it all figured out, time to share your knowledge

https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/m...nitiesJobs

Need to hurry though....job closes Monday the 18th at 2359hrs

I could say the same for you. Disappointed you don't want a debate and revert to this.

Unlike you I HAVE done it.

I think it was a bad situation all the way around and after studying the incident I would have handled it differently but I have the luxury of watching a video months after it happened with full knowledge of what was on the scene. Brailsford didn't have that luxury and he handled it in the manner he felt would best get him home at the end of the shift. Obviously the jury agreed because he was acquitted.

(12-11-2017 07:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

nobody is arguing that.....there's no question they need to revisit how to engage that scenario.....IMO two officers wasn't enough......

the argument is when an officer is trained to do a specific duty and has to react as req'd based on what happens up to that point.....

Remember the report was a man with a rifle, not a handgun.

yep.....and who carries just one if in the moment of "crazy"?

please elaborate.....

I'm telling you.....I'd have have popped him when both hands went behind the back.....

he acknowledged understanding the instructions.....was he shittin' his pants.....yes.....doesn't change that officer didn't know what was in his head.......

I've known many a liar in my life.....and they all had a gavina......now he's a dead one.....

bye-bye.....

see how that works (not you) dippos????

you simply just don't **** with the po'.......the one issuing instructions could not have BEEN MORE CLEAR! YOU'RE GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN!

dipshite ****** up when he said he hadn't been drinking.....that was the beginning of his end......

I understand the why he was found not guilty...dont like it but understand.

As for not going and cuff the kid while he was on the floor. You can't use the "the hall wasn't safe because they couldn't see it in the room". Maybe so if they didn't go to that door right after killing this guy. Nothing had changed at that point other than a kid was dead on the floor. If the officer couldn't see the door before the shot so they made this kid crawl towards them. Why did they rush in after shooting him?

Right after firing the shots they rushed in to cuff the kid and check out the room....so there was nothing stopping them from having the kid lay flat with fingers locked on the top of his head.

If this was my son at some point in the future this officer would be without knee caps, then fingers then I would tell him if he can crawl to me he would not be shot.

(12-11-2017 10:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I understand the why he was found not guilty...dont like it but understand.

As for not going and cuff the kid while he was on the floor. You can't use the "the hall wasn't safe because they couldn't see it in the room". Maybe so if they didn't go to that door right after killing this guy. Nothing had changed at that point other than a kid was dead on the floor. If the officer couldn't see the door before the shot so they made this kid crawl towards them. Why did they rush in after shooting him?

Right after firing the shots they rushed in to cuff the kid and check out the room....so there was nothing stopping them from having the kid lay flat with fingers locked on the top of his head.

If this was my son at some point in the future this officer would be without knee caps, then fingers then I would tell him if he can crawl to me he would not be shot.

then you'd be dead or arse raped......doesn't change a thing.....

this is why there are laws and 12 people on a jury.....

does it always work out....nope....

do I approve how it was handled.....nope....

but in the scope of the situation based on the evidience, there's no way I convict if on that jury....

maybe, you'd come after my kneecaps then, eh???

(12-11-2017 10:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I understand the why he was found not guilty...dont like it but understand.

As for not going and cuff the kid while he was on the floor. You can't use the "the hall wasn't safe because they couldn't see it in the room". Maybe so if they didn't go to that door right after killing this guy. Nothing had changed at that point other than a kid was dead on the floor. If the officer couldn't see the door before the shot so they made this kid crawl towards them. Why did they rush in after shooting him?

Right after firing the shots they rushed in to cuff the kid and check out the room....so there was nothing stopping them from having the kid lay flat with fingers locked on the top of his head.

If this was my son at some point in the future this officer would be without knee caps, then fingers then I would tell him if he can crawl to me he would not be shot.

then you'd be dead or arse raped......doesn't change a thing.....

this is why there are laws and 12 people on a jury.....

does it always work out....nope....

do I approve how it was handled.....nope....

but in the scope of the situation based on the evidience, there's no way I convict if on that jury....

maybe, you'd come after my kneecaps then, eh???

As I said I understand why he was found not guilty.....

but at some point in the future one of us would be dead and knowing I would be the first person the cops looked at. I would bid my time and do it right. Still might get caught...but he would pay with a slow painful death.

And I will repeat this again....

if you were afraid to go in and cuff before the killing. Nothing changed after it. So why all of a sudden it's OK to rush in and cuff and go to the door...a door you cant see?

(12-11-2017 10:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I understand the why he was found not guilty...dont like it but understand.

As for not going and cuff the kid while he was on the floor. You can't use the "the hall wasn't safe because they couldn't see it in the room". Maybe so if they didn't go to that door right after killing this guy. Nothing had changed at that point other than a kid was dead on the floor. If the officer couldn't see the door before the shot so they made this kid crawl towards them. Why did they rush in after shooting him?

Right after firing the shots they rushed in to cuff the kid and check out the room....so there was nothing stopping them from having the kid lay flat with fingers locked on the top of his head.

If this was my son at some point in the future this officer would be without knee caps, then fingers then I would tell him if he can crawl to me he would not be shot.

then you'd be dead or arse raped......doesn't change a thing.....

this is why there are laws and 12 people on a jury.....

does it always work out....nope....

do I approve how it was handled.....nope....

but in the scope of the situation based on the evidience, there's no way I convict if on that jury....

maybe, you'd come after my kneecaps then, eh???

As I said I understand why he was found not guilty.....

but at some point in the future one of us would be dead and knowing I would be the first person the cops looked at. I would bid my time and do it right. Still might get caught...but he would pay with a slow painful death.

And I will repeat this again....

if you were afraid to go in and cuff before the killing. Nothing changed after it. So why all of a sudden it's OK to rush in and cuff and go to the door...a door you cant see?

I'm not going to argue 'should've'....I previously stated why I would've handled it differently....

I hate repeating myself.....you can review if you wish.....

(12-11-2017 10:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I understand the why he was found not guilty...dont like it but understand.

As for not going and cuff the kid while he was on the floor. You can't use the "the hall wasn't safe because they couldn't see it in the room". Maybe so if they didn't go to that door right after killing this guy. Nothing had changed at that point other than a kid was dead on the floor. If the officer couldn't see the door before the shot so they made this kid crawl towards them. Why did they rush in after shooting him?

Right after firing the shots they rushed in to cuff the kid and check out the room....so there was nothing stopping them from having the kid lay flat with fingers locked on the top of his head.

If this was my son at some point in the future this officer would be without knee caps, then fingers then I would tell him if he can crawl to me he would not be shot.

then you'd be dead or arse raped......doesn't change a thing.....

this is why there are laws and 12 people on a jury.....

does it always work out....nope....

do I approve how it was handled.....nope....

but in the scope of the situation based on the evidience, there's no way I convict if on that jury....

maybe, you'd come after my kneecaps then, eh???

As I said I understand why he was found not guilty.....

but at some point in the future one of us would be dead and knowing I would be the first person the cops looked at. I would bid my time and do it right. Still might get caught...but he would pay with a slow painful death.

And I will repeat this again....

if you were afraid to go in and cuff before the killing. Nothing changed after it. So why all of a sudden it's OK to rush in and cuff and go to the door...a door you cant see?

I'm not going to argue 'should've'....I previously stated why I would've handled it differently....

I hate repeating myself.....you can review if you wish.....

There's no should haves.....

the argument for the cops not going in to cuff and making the kid crawl. The hallway/room was not cleared. Nothing changed with in those 5 seconds. Other than a shooting.

if there was a threat before firing those shots. It was still there. That did not change with the killing of this kid. That is a fact and not a should have. Hell they walk right up to a closed door with the cop who pulled the trigger standing right in front of the door. If you feared a threat...it was still there and a hotel door is not stopping a bullet.

The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

(12-11-2017 11:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

And I repeat my earlier post. You obviously have it all figured out.....time to put your money where your mouth is. Well actually YOUR ass on the line instead of being a keyboard cowboy. Let's see how you like advancing down a hallway towards armed suspects with no cover and nowhere to go. Like I said, get to steppin'..... the job closes at 2359hrs next Monday.

(12-11-2017 11:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

And I repeat my earlier post. You obviously have it all figured out.....time to put your money where your mouth is. Well actually YOUR ass on the line instead of being a keyboard cowboy. Let's see how you like advancing down a hallway towards armed suspects with no cover and nowhere to go. Like I said, get to steppin'..... the job closes at 2359hrs next Monday.

Kap, I don't have it figured out. And neither do you. I have never suggested that I have it all figured out. Shame on you for suggesting that I have made this claim. When I was in the Army I was in much worse situations. BTW driving and ambulance or whatever you do does not make you an expert.

(12-11-2017 11:32 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

And I repeat my earlier post. You obviously have it all figured out.....time to put your money where your mouth is. Well actually YOUR ass on the line instead of being a keyboard cowboy. Let's see how you like advancing down a hallway towards armed suspects with no cover and nowhere to go. Like I said, get to steppin'..... the job closes at 2359hrs next Monday.

Kap, I don't have it figured out. And neither do you. I have never suggested that I have it all figured out. Shame on you for suggesting that I have made this claim. When I was in the Army I was in much worse situations. BTW driving and ambulance or whatever you do does not make you an expert.

Well if you don't have it figured out then why are you making definitive statements like "If they were scared they shouldn't be cops"?

And unless you were in a combat arm in actual combat clearing houses then no you weren't in much worse situations than what these two officers were facing.

As for me, I covered the fact a long time ago that while assigned to an arson task force I completed law enforcement certification that allowed me to serve as a reserve officer. I worked with a small town as a volunteer up until I felt my knee situation made me a liability. I did traffic stops, I assisted on raids, and I backed up other officers on "man with gun" calls. I've been in plenty of situations where my only protection was the low bid Kevlar vest I was wearing was my own protection. And just like with the FD if there was ever anyone I worked with who wasn't scared in those kinds of situations I did my level best to never work with them again because those kinds of people are the dangerous ones.

I've never claimed to be a law enforcement expert, but unlike the vast majority of "experts" in the threads we have on here about law enforcement I have actually walked in their shoes. And it's been my experience that "experts" who haven't are usually selling you a load of horseshit.

Were there riots after this verdict came down? Just wondering.

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

1) Us second-guessing police procedures is not at issue here. They follow protocols.

2) iirc, there was concern that there was at least one other person in the room. Had they done as you suggest, one cop would have been securing the suspect, the other would have been 'covering' that person. Who would have been watching the other end of the hallway for the third person? And no, you couldn't cover the suspect with another cop on top of him AND been watching the end of the hallway... at least not without significantly risking shooting the cop (since he would be 'up' and the suspect 'down')

3) The commands weren't that difficult. The most important one was 'slowly' and (paraphrasing) 'when you put your hands where I can't see them, I get concerned that you have a gun... don't do that again or I will shoot you'

Seriously, the biggest reason the commands were confusing was because the cop was being clear and the guy was moving quickly... sometimes before the cop finished the instructions... and OFTEN in direct violation of the instructions.

(12-11-2017 10:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  if you were afraid to go in and cuff before the killing. Nothing changed after it. So why all of a sudden it's OK to rush in and cuff and go to the door...a door you cant see?

It seems obvious that it's not about being afraid.... It's about having the manpower to address the situation.

The woman was subdued and the man dead. No need to cover them anymore.... and If there were another shooter, especially with a bomb, this is precisely the time he would have set it off. No time to wait... and those people rushed into a situation to save our sorry asses and you guys want to condemn them for it? Pitiful.

If you guys would like to argue police procedures, that's fine... but none of us are experts in that field and the people who set up these procedures, while not perfect, are.

If the guys broke protocol, fine.... let's hear that argument... I haven't heard that other than as speculations... but it certainly makes logical sense that you would address a potential mass killer quickly.... even if short-handed.... that you wouldn't rush two people with two people if you thought there were a third, and once shooting started and suspects shot, that the third might make a rash, suicidal/homicidal decision.

I watched a bunch of youtube videos last night and was amazed at the number of STUPID people there are in this world.... who punch their best friends in the face or kick them in the nuts for a laugh... who routinely challenge cops doing their jobs and think they're cool.... etc etc etc.

To the extent that we do, the reason we have ****** cops is because we are (by and large) ****** people... and DECENT people won't do that job... yet we still want them to do that job (when and how we want them to).

If they were drunk, they should have said so immediately. They should have come out of the room immediately. They should have made sure they understood every command before they moved and then moved slowly and compliantly... not jumping and flopping around like a petulant 2 year old when someone is training a gun on them. The woman essentially did (a little whining aside). If he was too drunk, he shouldn't have been playing with the bb gun in the first place. That's how 'accidents' happen.

****** for the guy... ****** for the cop. The guy is 'why things happened', not the cop.

(12-12-2017 12:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.

1) Us second-guessing police procedures is not at issue here. They follow protocols.

2) iirc, there was concern that there was at least one other person in the room. Had they done as you suggest, one cop would have been securing the suspect, the other would have been 'covering' that person. Who would have been watching the other end of the hallway for the third person? And no, you couldn't cover the suspect with another cop on top of him AND been watching the end of the hallway... at least not without significantly risking shooting the cop (since he would be 'up' and the suspect 'down')

3) The commands weren't that difficult. The most important one was 'slowly' and (paraphrasing) 'when you put your hands where I can't see them, I get concerned that you have a gun... don't do that again or I will shoot you'

Seriously, the biggest reason the commands were confusing was because the cop was being clear and the guy was moving quickly... sometimes before the cop finished the instructions... and OFTEN in direct violation of the instructions.

(12-11-2017 10:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  if you were afraid to go in and cuff before the killing. Nothing changed after it. So why all of a sudden it's OK to rush in and cuff and go to the door...a door you cant see?

It seems obvious that it's not about being afraid.... It's about having the manpower to address the situation.

The woman was subdued and the man dead. No need to cover them anymore.... and If there were another shooter, especially with a bomb, this is precisely the time he would have set it off. No time to wait... and those people rushed into a situation to save our sorry asses and you guys want to condemn them for it? Pitiful.

If you guys would like to argue police procedures, that's fine... but none of us are experts in that field and the people who set up these procedures, while not perfect, are.


****** for the guy... ****** for the cop. The guy is 'why things happened', not the cop.

I cut out most of your post because the part in bold is just flat out wrong.....

There was no more manpower there before the shots than 5 seconds after the shooting. That's just silly to say other wise.

The cop shot the kid. With in 5 seconds both move in and then to the door.

NOTHING CHANGED during those 5 seconds other than shooting the kid. If there was a threat around the hall or in that room before the shooting...keeping the cops from having this kid lay flat with fingers locked behind his head and moving in to cuff.

It was still there after the shooting. Yet both cops moved in. So if the only threat was the kid...it must have been because after he's dead the cops no longer have any fear of the unknown.

So the "threat" was under control and could have been taken down by a simple .."lay flat and lock your fingers behind your head"

As I said I understand the not guilty. By the law that cop could have feared for his life with the movement the kid made by pulling up his pants. The cop had no way of knowing what was in his mind. So I get the not guilty. Don't like it but I would have voted that way also...by the law

But that still doesn't change.....NOTHING happen with the shooting to change a perceived threat down the hall or at the unseen door. Yet those 2 cops moved right in. The fear from the unknown was still there. Lets play "if there was a bomb".

Where in the world that came from I don't know but lets play that game of what if....who in the hell rushes in to the person with a bomb? That's just silly

(12-11-2017 11:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

And I repeat my earlier post. You obviously have it all figured out.....time to put your money where your mouth is. Well actually YOUR ass on the line instead of being a keyboard cowboy. Let's see how you like advancing down a hallway towards armed suspects with no cover and nowhere to go. Like I said, get to steppin'..... the job closes at 2359hrs next Monday.

Armed suspects? Is that what they were responding to becuase I had heard it was just one guy with an air rifle.