Bird
Rest in Peace
A topic that's been extensively debated.
A sad day for Fire Fighters
- Thread starter RobertN
- Start date
- Views: 2600
A topic that's been extensively debated.
Tom_H
Veteran Member
dmccarty said:
bird said:
That is such a surprise to me. Not that I'm trying to argue. I'm just a person without any real background on the subject and it just comes as a shock.
What kinds of statistics are there on this? Bird, what's your opinion? If this is something that's been hashed over and over, maybe just give me a link to a previous thread. I know how tiring it gets to say the same thing a hundred times to another person.
I just never would have dreamed that.
Tom_H
Veteran Member
dmccarty said:
Hmmm, Sacramento Bee today gave a timeline. At 3:27 a.m., the officer indicated via computer that he'd pulled over a white van, 1 occupant, no plates & indicated all was o.k. At 3:34, somebody keyed the patrol car mike, but didn't speak and then didn't respond to the dispatcher. 12 seconds later a "Code 3" was called. It was still 3:34 a.m. Two more units arrived at 3:37. I don't know if they came from the sub-station or not, but it's a good 8 or 9 miles from the sub-station to the location. This is a quiet rural area, but if they came from the sub-station, that's movin'.
There were signs the deputy was in a substantial struggle before he was shot. 12 hours later, a white van was discovered half submerged in the nearby river. A known drug addict and his girlfriend were inside, recently deceased from carbon monoxide poisoning after the tailpipe flooded. This van had plates, 2 occupants, no sign of struggle on either body.
Authorities are puzzled. At this point they are pursuing one hypothesis that this is the van, and another that it was a different van. Wierd.
dmccarty
Super Star Member
Bird said:A topic that's been extensively debated.
And will ever be so. Kinda like which oil to use.
Later,
Dan
dmccarty
Super Star Member
Tom,
This is one issue that I dont remember being discussed in depth on TBN. Which is a surprise since we talk about everything else. Single officer/Two Officer patrol has been debated endlessly in law enforcement circles forever.
I don't ever remember reading a study itself but its a something I have seen repeated in articles and been told in training over and over. My two cents is that in a city one or two officers in a car does not much matter since backup is close by. In rural areas its different since backup maybe hours away. In FL, wildlife officers would patrol by themselves on land but on the water they would try to have two officers. In NC the wildlife officers always seem to patrol with two. In the county its one deputy per car.
The problem is that if you have two officers in a car you just limited how much area that can be covered. Two cars can obviously cover more area than one. A car accident might require one officer. So while one is doing the report they other guy is doing nothing. For risky calls multiple officers will go but it can take time.
So to put multiple officers in a car the agency has to put less patrols on the road OR raises taxes to cover the increased number of officers.
The safety argument FOR one officer patrols is that two officers get complacent. I think there CAN be some truth to this argument.
In the case near you it sounds like two officers could have prevented the shooting. Traffic stops are risky. Routine Traffic Stop does not exist. Given that the van had no plate and the time of the morning that was a bad bad bad stop. I would guess the officers that arrived so quickly had already been moving towards the officer after he announced the stop. If they where not then the agency has some issues.
But two officers have also been shot and killed by handcuffed prisioners.
The bottom line is that its just a dangerous job where things go bad very quickly.
Later,
Dan
This is one issue that I dont remember being discussed in depth on TBN. Which is a surprise since we talk about everything else.
Single officer/Two Officer patrol has been debated endlessly in law enforcement circles forever.I don't ever remember reading a study itself but its a something I have seen repeated in articles and been told in training over and over. My two cents is that in a city one or two officers in a car does not much matter since backup is close by. In rural areas its different since backup maybe hours away. In FL, wildlife officers would patrol by themselves on land but on the water they would try to have two officers. In NC the wildlife officers always seem to patrol with two. In the county its one deputy per car.
The problem is that if you have two officers in a car you just limited how much area that can be covered. Two cars can obviously cover more area than one. A car accident might require one officer. So while one is doing the report they other guy is doing nothing. For risky calls multiple officers will go but it can take time.
So to put multiple officers in a car the agency has to put less patrols on the road OR raises taxes to cover the increased number of officers.
The safety argument FOR one officer patrols is that two officers get complacent. I think there CAN be some truth to this argument.
In the case near you it sounds like two officers could have prevented the shooting. Traffic stops are risky. Routine Traffic Stop does not exist. Given that the van had no plate and the time of the morning that was a bad bad bad stop. I would guess the officers that arrived so quickly had already been moving towards the officer after he announced the stop. If they where not then the agency has some issues.
But two officers have also been shot and killed by handcuffed prisioners.
The bottom line is that its just a dangerous job where things go bad very quickly.
Later,
Dan
Bird
Rest in Peace
Anything I say regarding police work would be badly dated since I retired in '89.
When I started on the police department, Dallas used single officer cars on the day shift and two officer cars on the evening and late night shift. We rotated shifts every month, so the senior officers worked a month at a time on each of the 3 shifts while the newer officers (for about two and a half years) worked only evenings and late nights; two months on one of those shifts, then a month on the other. I have forgotten the exact date, but in late '65 or early '66, we went to all single officer cars (except when a training officer had a recruit).
Preparations for the change was the best kept secret in the history of the police department. I still don't know how they did it. None of us patrolman had even heard rumors of the change, but when I went to work at 3 p.m. that day, we had a bunch of new cars, marked, equipped, etc. and they told us we'd all be working alone. There were a lot of very unhappy officers that evening. Keep in mind that in those prehistoric times, we had a 2 channel radio in the car; no cell phones, mobile phones, portable radios, computers, etc.
As Dan said, more marked cars on the street increases police visibility which many believe reduces crime. One theory is that with the officers spread out, they'll see more of what is going on. On the other hand, one officer driving may not see things that a second officer (passenger) might see.
As Dan said, two officers might become complacent. But let's say you and I are partners and we come upon a suspicious and/or quite possibly very dangerous situation. We're going to handle that situation, and right now with no question about it, because I sure don't want you to think I'm afraid, and you don't want me to think you're afraid. On the other hand, when I'm working alone, I might just drive on by and pretend to not see the problem. Why take a chance? No one will know and it pays the same. Yeah, I know; we hope to hire and train officers who won't react that way, but can we count on it?
And what happens when you get an officer who is prone to illegal activity? Again, we hope we don't, but every department does from time to time. He/she may be more likely to engage in such activity when there is no other officer around to see it.
As Dan indicated, I suspect the topic of single officer vs. partners will still be debated long past our lifetime.
When I started on the police department, Dallas used single officer cars on the day shift and two officer cars on the evening and late night shift. We rotated shifts every month, so the senior officers worked a month at a time on each of the 3 shifts while the newer officers (for about two and a half years) worked only evenings and late nights; two months on one of those shifts, then a month on the other. I have forgotten the exact date, but in late '65 or early '66, we went to all single officer cars (except when a training officer had a recruit).
Preparations for the change was the best kept secret in the history of the police department.
I still don't know how they did it. None of us patrolman had even heard rumors of the change, but when I went to work at 3 p.m. that day, we had a bunch of new cars, marked, equipped, etc. and they told us we'd all be working alone. There were a lot of very unhappy officers that evening. Keep in mind that in those prehistoric times, we had a 2 channel radio in the car; no cell phones, mobile phones, portable radios, computers, etc. As Dan said, more marked cars on the street increases police visibility which many believe reduces crime. One theory is that with the officers spread out, they'll see more of what is going on. On the other hand, one officer driving may not see things that a second officer (passenger) might see.
As Dan said, two officers might become complacent. But let's say you and I are partners and we come upon a suspicious and/or quite possibly very dangerous situation. We're going to handle that situation, and right now with no question about it, because I sure don't want you to think I'm afraid, and you don't want me to think you're afraid. On the other hand, when I'm working alone, I might just drive on by and pretend to not see the problem. Why take a chance? No one will know and it pays the same. Yeah, I know; we hope to hire and train officers who won't react that way, but can we count on it?
And what happens when you get an officer who is prone to illegal activity? Again, we hope we don't, but every department does from time to time. He/she may be more likely to engage in such activity when there is no other officer around to see it.
As Dan indicated, I suspect the topic of single officer vs. partners will still be debated long past our lifetime.
Tom_H
Veteran Member
Well thank you both for taking the time to reply. Your explanations have made it clear that there are two valid sides to this issue.
I still wish there were some way to make such a situation as this safer for the officer. I wonder if some of the new technology being used by the military in urban settings could one day be applied. They have remote controlled mini-vehicles to drive around and inspect buildings, even remote controlled planes carrying missles. Perhaps the top of a squad car could have a little hemispherical pod with several video cameras giving a 360 degree range. Instead of just recording what goes on, a live feed could go back to the dispatcher. In a potentially dangerous situation, one or two more officers at the base monitor the cameras, and if anything suspicious starts to happen out of the officer's line of sight, those monitoring via remote could alert him in his earpiece. For nighttime, maybe thay could switch to infrared cameras. The pod could be elevated from the roof on a shaft. Also on the shaft, between the roof and surveilence pod, could be mounted a rotating stun gun which could be operated by remote from one of the other officers.
Anything to make this difficult job safer.
I still wish there were some way to make such a situation as this safer for the officer. I wonder if some of the new technology being used by the military in urban settings could one day be applied. They have remote controlled mini-vehicles to drive around and inspect buildings, even remote controlled planes carrying missles. Perhaps the top of a squad car could have a little hemispherical pod with several video cameras giving a 360 degree range. Instead of just recording what goes on, a live feed could go back to the dispatcher. In a potentially dangerous situation, one or two more officers at the base monitor the cameras, and if anything suspicious starts to happen out of the officer's line of sight, those monitoring via remote could alert him in his earpiece. For nighttime, maybe thay could switch to infrared cameras. The pod could be elevated from the roof on a shaft. Also on the shaft, between the roof and surveilence pod, could be mounted a rotating stun gun which could be operated by remote from one of the other officers.
Anything to make this difficult job safer.
dmccarty
Super Star Member
Tom,
If the officer's patrol car had a video system eventually more will be known about what happened. I have watched more patrol car videos of officers being shot than I care to count. These incidents go from being "normal" to Oh My God Bad in a flash. Usually they are over just as quick.
And the longer the fight takes the more it moves all over the place. People running around cars taking cover, rolling on the ground, its just chaos. It ain't pretty like the movies.
Officers generally are very non critical when looking at these incidents for a variety of reasons. From the prevention point of view what the officer did or could have done is often limited and very much time constrained. I just saw a video of an officer shot in Texas. He pulled over a car at which point a man in his 60s or 70s got out, pulled out a rifle and shot the officer. It happened as quick as you can read the sentence. The officer was able to get out of his car but he hesitated for a split second and did not shoot. The Old Dude did shoot. The question is why did the officer not shoot? Pretty cut and dried situation right? Well not really.
Normal people really have it ingrained in them not to kill. The man with the rifle never raised it to his shoulder and shot from the hip. Since he did that there was less time for the officer to react physically. Mentally, since the weapon never went UP I don't think the officer perceived that the threat level had just gone way up. Remember, just because the bad guy has a gun you don't get to shoot. Also the man was dressed from head to toe in black. I think this lessoned the officers reaction time as well since the weapon blended in just a bit with the clothes. And since officers know very well how the courts, agencies, and the media deals with officer involved shootings that could have entered into what the officer did or did not do.
My GUESS is that all or a good portion of the above is what happened. But who knows.
My dark humor comment was that the officer SHOULD have known the guy was a threat since he was wearing a black hat. They where in Texas after all.
In the incident above, the arriving officers DID NOT shoot the suspect. They had able opportunity and reason to do so but they did not. I assume the officer lived but I don't know for sure. You could hear him breathing throughout the video. The shooter actually got on the radio and told dispatch the officer had been shot.
Later,
Dan
If the officer's patrol car had a video system eventually more will be known about what happened. I have watched more patrol car videos of officers being shot than I care to count. These incidents go from being "normal" to Oh My God Bad in a flash. Usually they are over just as quick.
And the longer the fight takes the more it moves all over the place. People running around cars taking cover, rolling on the ground, its just chaos. It ain't pretty like the movies.
Officers generally are very non critical when looking at these incidents for a variety of reasons. From the prevention point of view what the officer did or could have done is often limited and very much time constrained. I just saw a video of an officer shot in Texas. He pulled over a car at which point a man in his 60s or 70s got out, pulled out a rifle and shot the officer. It happened as quick as you can read the sentence. The officer was able to get out of his car but he hesitated for a split second and did not shoot. The Old Dude did shoot. The question is why did the officer not shoot? Pretty cut and dried situation right? Well not really.
Normal people really have it ingrained in them not to kill. The man with the rifle never raised it to his shoulder and shot from the hip. Since he did that there was less time for the officer to react physically. Mentally, since the weapon never went UP I don't think the officer perceived that the threat level had just gone way up. Remember, just because the bad guy has a gun you don't get to shoot. Also the man was dressed from head to toe in black. I think this lessoned the officers reaction time as well since the weapon blended in just a bit with the clothes. And since officers know very well how the courts, agencies, and the media deals with officer involved shootings that could have entered into what the officer did or did not do.
My GUESS is that all or a good portion of the above is what happened. But who knows.
My dark humor comment was that the officer SHOULD have known the guy was a threat since he was wearing a black hat. They where in Texas after all.
In the incident above, the arriving officers DID NOT shoot the suspect. They had able opportunity and reason to do so but they did not. I assume the officer lived but I don't know for sure. You could hear him breathing throughout the video.
The shooter actually got on the radio and told dispatch the officer had been shot. Later,
Dan
dmccarty
Super Star Member
I heard this morning that the last surviving firefighter died.
Later,
Dan
Later,
Dan
It is a sad day when we lose any of our broters and sisters that have dedicated there self to emergency services. with that being said...
If you look into cause and orgin of a lot of the big fires you will notice that some of our own are getting charged with lighting the fires. (back east: Fire Chief and 4 of the department employees charged, including the Fire Chief grandson) NV BLM employee charged and convicted for the Elko fire.
Sad thing is a lot of the people are "seasonal employees, or Volunteers" not proffesional career employees (not to say that career dont do the same)
Sad day losing our own to sensless acts
Willie
Fire Captain
Reserve Deputy
If you look into cause and orgin of a lot of the big fires you will notice that some of our own are getting charged with lighting the fires. (back east: Fire Chief and 4 of the department employees charged, including the Fire Chief grandson) NV BLM employee charged and convicted for the Elko fire.
Sad thing is a lot of the people are "seasonal employees, or Volunteers" not proffesional career employees (not to say that career dont do the same)
Sad day losing our own to sensless acts
Willie
Fire Captain
Reserve Deputy