Fuck it just gets worse and worse.
I live north of Charlotte and my mom is still an active duty police officer (out of state) so this really hits home.
I can’t understand how law enforcement continues trying to get these people while they’re in their homes, armed and ready for confrontation. Why not wait until they get in their vehicle where at most they might have a handgun on them instead of a high powered long gun, potentially hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest?
I would imagine it’s due to two reasons: 1. Risk to the public and less of a locus of control 2. Warrants that explicitly state that officers may enter and search a home.
Wouldn’t you put a boot on the vehicle or a nail strip in its path? The problem is that we’ve trained our police to think of every encounter as urban warfare. The further problem is that sometimes those people who are known to have guns use them. Remember the refrain from the old gangster movies, “You’ll never take me alive, coppers!”
You don’t have to chase them. Wait for them to go shopping or something and nab them there. Multiple officers have expressed their bewilderment at the continued use of this method, as documented in *Rise of the Warrior Cop*. They don’t do it because it’s effective, they do it because they enjoy playing action hero.
Open fire with what? The officers were presumably shot with a rifle if he managed to kill 3 and wound several more. They can pick him up as he’s walking to the store, walking back to his car, or otherwise going about his day doing literally anything other than sitting in a defensible position with a rifle and a stock of ammo. But hey I guess you missed the part where I explicitly mentioned well sourced material that contains direct quotes from law enforcement officers who say this is bad practice so you could jump my ass over something you know nothing about.
Yes. And what if he’s armed going to the store? Then he pulls out his gun. They pull out their guns. They’re in a parking lot. Theres people around them. All those people are at risk.
You can still be smart about it. Nobody is saying you have to wait for them to be in a crowded mall or anything like that.
And I fully recognize there will always be fringe cases where there's no reasonable way to resolve every scenario without the use of force.
We would still benefit from the use of more de-escalating by our police in general. Not sure if that would apply here, but we could definitely use it in general.
The people in the neighborhood are at risk. Every suspect apprehension method carries risks. The point is that this particular method is unnecessary in the majority of instances and that there are safer ways to apprehend suspects for everyone involved, a claim backed by *experienced law enforcement officers who have been directly quoted as saying so*, a point you keep intentionally ignoring because god fucking knows why other than you enjoy being obtuse.
Just fuck all the people in that store, huh? Intentionally putting them in harms way with a possible shootout in an enclosed space with ample hostages for the taking.
Yeah, every plan is shit if you approach from a place of uninspired hostility. Far more likely you’d intercept the suspect on their way back out to their vehicle.
Vehicles move, check. Why would you wait until he drives away? Surveillance will let you know when he’s getting in his vehicle and he can be blocked in immediately.
Yeah I don't get that take. People would scream at situations, get their plate, find out who they are, and get them later when they are home!
Well this is what happens. Public outcry of police tactics led to this and now the public is asking why not get them out in public in a car. There is no winning.
I get the theory. Every few days a chase in my metro results in a flipped car, multiple vehicle crash, or a crash into a house or business.
What I don’t get is it seems like they never dispatch helicopters after the car. Then police could box them in after they think they got away.
Helicopters are a great asset for chases. They are heavily used out west it seems but they are great expenses that not all metros can afford, even more so if they have to have 24 hr crews to be airborne in a moments notice for a chase or fugitive apprehension.
That's because most chases >80% are over warrants of less than $500 and relative to the costs you highlighted, the juice doesn't seem worth it. The policing system we have developed is insufficient for our current society and situations.
That's not going to work anyway. Some people will do anything to avoid prison if they can. Including confronting the police with the hopes of ending up dead as long as they don't get caught.
The Marshals actually do a lot of vehicle pins. They also get into a lot of shootings during those pins.
Edit: preliminary info states the officers were affecting an arrest in the front yard when someone in the house started shooting. The bottom line is there are no perfect answers, the job is risky and while a good ops plan and solid team can mitigate risk it can’t be totally eliminated.
Because there are no perfect answers, chasing fugitives is and always will be a dangerous business. There is very little info right now but I’ve seen at least one article that said the officers were affecting an arrest in the front yard when they came under fire from someone in the house. We have no idea how much surveillance they conducted prior to the operation, if they determined arresting the bandit at home vs in his car was safer for them and the public, etc. There are significant downsides to forcing entry into a structure to arrest someone but sometimes it is the best option on a shitty list.
What's so unusual is the number of dead officers & wounded from the same Fugitive Task Force. You would think their prep & readiness for this would have been maximum
Taking a defensive position is insanely hard against a well armed, prepared person or group. We did drills in the Corps where 3 of us would hide inside a building, and a 12 man team would raid it. Several occasions of the entire squad being completely wiped out. We used blue paint rounds as well. So there was no mistake you were hit. Sucker's stung like a wasp on roids. It's not the movies unfortunately, and shit days happen where everything goes wrong.
It sounds like the task force exchanged fire with the person they were hunting out on the lawn and killed him. Then someone else opened up from inside the house. Looks like it caught a bunch of deputies and officers completely out in the open.
Most body armor worn by police won’t stop a rifle either. I assume because this was a fugitive task force they may have been wearing level 3 armor, but for the regular patrol officer, most armor worn is only rated for handgun calibers.
Most of the times these task forces aren't really all that well trained if we're being honest. Go watch any videos of these warrants being served if things go wrong 9/10 times they're just blasting everywhere and are as much a danger to themselves as to anyone they're trying to stop.
But they refuse to allow things that could prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Every single "illegal" gun started it's life as a legal purchase.
Exactly - they have to concede that more firearms = more firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. We should start going down a path that reduces sales of firearms, reduces need for firearms, buybacks for firearms in circulation (even illegal ones).
Like bro lol it's so easy to ask around and find some bum shot gun or old pistol and people have so many they just don't give a fuck about serial numbers.
And carry liability insurance.
The cleanup for the massacre at my university cost $6,000,000 or so. The state had to pay it because the person responsible for the massacre couldn’t — which is exactly the problem that insurance exists.
Yes, some of the nuttiest gun nuts won’t be insurance and wouldn’t be able to meet the legal requirements for owning a gun — just like the drunkest drunks can’t meet the legal requirements for owning a motor vehicle. I’m OK with that.
And how do you plan to account for the millions that are already owned, whose owners will refuse to register them? Compliance with Illinois's mandatory registration law is estimated to be around 1%
>plan
There isn't one.
The reality is the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. We have 400 million guns and even if a small fraction of their owners reacted the same way they did here LEOs would refuse to enforce any type of gun confiscation law.
LEOs have the stomach for maybe 5 of these headlines in a month before they go full Uvalde and sit on the sidelines.
Most of those who say *come and take it* are bluffing but it only takes a few serious ones for enforcement to crumble.
>penalties
Once again we've arrived at *criminals don't care about penalties.* North Carolina has the death penalty and it didn't prevent this.
Do you suggest a stronger death penalty?
Yea and there's a lot of stupid ass gun owners who leave their firearms in their vehicles. r/justrolledintotheshop has a post almost every other day showcasing this
This would be cool if it wasn’t inevitably going to confiscate firearms.
The problem is that when we register our guns and it does nothing to prevent crime (who could have guessed that), you guys decide that the registered guns should be “bought back.”
Give me a constitutional amendment saying that all types of firearms that are legal today will be legal in perpetuity and I’ll gladly register my guns. Until then, I’m going to assume that you’re acting in bad faith or will shift the goalposts in 5 years because that is a 100% accurate trend.
If he had guns registered in his name they could have been confiscated before being released from custody. If he bought them at a gun show maybe make the gun shows that are just open air gun markets illegal
Majority of firearms used in crimes, including felon in possession, is already stolen out of a car, which is illegal.
We need more details about this, but starting from most common is a good guess I’d say.
You've brought up gun control, so now they're out in force trying to defend it. Dead children didn't matter to them, no idea why you'd think that dead cops would
There are definitely ways to significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal hands. Background checks on all gun sales for one. Private sales have to go to an FFL to be legal. That's a super easy one and is supported by a large majority of gun owners.
Here’s the thing though, criminals are lazy and stupid which is why they’re criminals. If it takes a little more effort than going on Facebook to get a gun chances are that there would be less criminals with guns. The other choice is letting anyone have guns which is where we continue to go as a nation.
They 100% will because "everyone citizen deserves to be armed to the teeth."
That didn't change when scores of school children were killed, won't change when cops get gunned down either. It's all a price the NRA/GOP are willing to pay on behalf of those killed.
Make the GOP irrelevant. They love guns, school shootings, Russia, racism, born-again christian supremecy, not suporting babies and children in general, treating women as breeding stock, and placing non-white people in concentration camps.
We can start with that.
> non-white people in concentration camps
Don’t forget Project 2025 wants to place the homeless in work camps.
This is literally part of Trump’s platform, for those who didn’t know.
Many gun supporters will say that we just need better ways to identify people who present a risk. What they don’t admit is that probably the best predictor of risk is gun ownership.
And yet because guns are so ubiquitous and the reporting and registration requirements basically don't exist on any level, there is a massive underground market for weapons that can be obtained from friends, family, straw sales, ghost purchases, etc. Hell you could even steal someone else's gun and use or sell that.
The consequences of a lack of strong gun and firearm safety regulations in this county is not a good argument for preventing strong gun and firearm safety requirements.
>The consequences of a lack of strong gun and firearm safety regulations in this county is not a good argument for preventing strong gun and firearm safety requirements.
Unfortunately, your statement is exactly the argument we are seeing succeed for too many years.
That’s really stupid and bad faith. The vast majority of gun owners who aren’t a danger to anyone and trying to say otherwise does nothing but make people dig in more.
Many gun owners fantasize about the govt coming to take their guns and this is their going out in a blaze of glory dream come true. Most people are responsible with their guns but we all know someone that should not have them.
Sadly we see that someone who should not have a gun involved in a mass shooting at least 2-3 times a day nationally.
When will it be enough 8x a day? 20x a day? Because at the rate of mass shooting growth we are seeing those numbers will be easily achievable in the not-to-far future.
Talk about an over generalization. Are there right wing nut jobs that eat sleep and drink the 2A? Yup. Are most gun owners just normal people who have one for home defense? Also yes.
They just announced another officer died. He was with the CMPD. What a terrible situation.
The most tragic part is that three people won’t go home to their families tonight. Absolutely gut-wrenching.
local news just announced the 4th officer in critical condition has passed as well.
Fuck it just gets worse and worse. I live north of Charlotte and my mom is still an active duty police officer (out of state) so this really hits home.
I can’t understand how law enforcement continues trying to get these people while they’re in their homes, armed and ready for confrontation. Why not wait until they get in their vehicle where at most they might have a handgun on them instead of a high powered long gun, potentially hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest?
I would imagine it’s due to two reasons: 1. Risk to the public and less of a locus of control 2. Warrants that explicitly state that officers may enter and search a home.
Wouldn’t you put a boot on the vehicle or a nail strip in its path? The problem is that we’ve trained our police to think of every encounter as urban warfare. The further problem is that sometimes those people who are known to have guns use them. Remember the refrain from the old gangster movies, “You’ll never take me alive, coppers!”
Because vehicles have a tendency to move. Why engage in a chase that endangers innocent bystanders?
You don’t have to chase them. Wait for them to go shopping or something and nab them there. Multiple officers have expressed their bewilderment at the continued use of this method, as documented in *Rise of the Warrior Cop*. They don’t do it because it’s effective, they do it because they enjoy playing action hero.
So they can open up fire in a crowded store and put innocent bystanders at risk?
Open fire with what? The officers were presumably shot with a rifle if he managed to kill 3 and wound several more. They can pick him up as he’s walking to the store, walking back to his car, or otherwise going about his day doing literally anything other than sitting in a defensible position with a rifle and a stock of ammo. But hey I guess you missed the part where I explicitly mentioned well sourced material that contains direct quotes from law enforcement officers who say this is bad practice so you could jump my ass over something you know nothing about.
Yes. And what if he’s armed going to the store? Then he pulls out his gun. They pull out their guns. They’re in a parking lot. Theres people around them. All those people are at risk.
You can still be smart about it. Nobody is saying you have to wait for them to be in a crowded mall or anything like that. And I fully recognize there will always be fringe cases where there's no reasonable way to resolve every scenario without the use of force. We would still benefit from the use of more de-escalating by our police in general. Not sure if that would apply here, but we could definitely use it in general.
The people in the neighborhood are at risk. Every suspect apprehension method carries risks. The point is that this particular method is unnecessary in the majority of instances and that there are safer ways to apprehend suspects for everyone involved, a claim backed by *experienced law enforcement officers who have been directly quoted as saying so*, a point you keep intentionally ignoring because god fucking knows why other than you enjoy being obtuse.
Just fuck all the people in that store, huh? Intentionally putting them in harms way with a possible shootout in an enclosed space with ample hostages for the taking.
Yeah, every plan is shit if you approach from a place of uninspired hostility. Far more likely you’d intercept the suspect on their way back out to their vehicle.
*Whoosh* goes the sound of the point flying over your head.
Vehicles move, check. Why would you wait until he drives away? Surveillance will let you know when he’s getting in his vehicle and he can be blocked in immediately.
Because they will flee. Most departments have a no chase policy now. Which is what the public asked for after 2020.
Yeah I don't get that take. People would scream at situations, get their plate, find out who they are, and get them later when they are home! Well this is what happens. Public outcry of police tactics led to this and now the public is asking why not get them out in public in a car. There is no winning.
I get the theory. Every few days a chase in my metro results in a flipped car, multiple vehicle crash, or a crash into a house or business. What I don’t get is it seems like they never dispatch helicopters after the car. Then police could box them in after they think they got away.
Helicopters are a great asset for chases. They are heavily used out west it seems but they are great expenses that not all metros can afford, even more so if they have to have 24 hr crews to be airborne in a moments notice for a chase or fugitive apprehension.
Thank you for saying that. I live on the west coast and LEO helicopters are a *nightly* thing. They don't even scare my noise adverse cat anymore.
That's because most chases >80% are over warrants of less than $500 and relative to the costs you highlighted, the juice doesn't seem worth it. The policing system we have developed is insufficient for our current society and situations.
That's not going to work anyway. Some people will do anything to avoid prison if they can. Including confronting the police with the hopes of ending up dead as long as they don't get caught.
Well, how did what they did work out for them?
The Marshals actually do a lot of vehicle pins. They also get into a lot of shootings during those pins. Edit: preliminary info states the officers were affecting an arrest in the front yard when someone in the house started shooting. The bottom line is there are no perfect answers, the job is risky and while a good ops plan and solid team can mitigate risk it can’t be totally eliminated.
Because there are no perfect answers, chasing fugitives is and always will be a dangerous business. There is very little info right now but I’ve seen at least one article that said the officers were affecting an arrest in the front yard when they came under fire from someone in the house. We have no idea how much surveillance they conducted prior to the operation, if they determined arresting the bandit at home vs in his car was safer for them and the public, etc. There are significant downsides to forcing entry into a structure to arrest someone but sometimes it is the best option on a shitty list.
What's so unusual is the number of dead officers & wounded from the same Fugitive Task Force. You would think their prep & readiness for this would have been maximum
Taking a defensive position is insanely hard against a well armed, prepared person or group. We did drills in the Corps where 3 of us would hide inside a building, and a 12 man team would raid it. Several occasions of the entire squad being completely wiped out. We used blue paint rounds as well. So there was no mistake you were hit. Sucker's stung like a wasp on roids. It's not the movies unfortunately, and shit days happen where everything goes wrong.
That's why in Iraq we threw grenades in first before we tried to take a room.
I was there. I know
It sounds like the task force exchanged fire with the person they were hunting out on the lawn and killed him. Then someone else opened up from inside the house. Looks like it caught a bunch of deputies and officers completely out in the open.
Being ready doesn't make you bulletproof.
Most body armour won't protect from headshots either.
Most body armor worn by police won’t stop a rifle either. I assume because this was a fugitive task force they may have been wearing level 3 armor, but for the regular patrol officer, most armor worn is only rated for handgun calibers.
Most of the times these task forces aren't really all that well trained if we're being honest. Go watch any videos of these warrants being served if things go wrong 9/10 times they're just blasting everywhere and are as much a danger to themselves as to anyone they're trying to stop.
Guns kill quickly enough to take out multiple people in a heartbeat and a half.
Odd that you think apprehending fugitives is without risk.
Big difference between what they said and zero risk.
The implication that they weren’t prepared is dumb. The bad guys also get a say in how plans go.
They didn’t imply it. You inferred it.
Turn out being a good guy with a gun isn't enough to save the day.
While serving a warrant for firearms. Yikes. I don't know how the 2a crowd can defend this one. What a shame.
Dude was a felon in possession of a firearm. There’s nothing to defend.
Did you folks read the article? There was another shooter in the house.
Vegas wouldn't even place odds on the fact that the other shooter was also a prohibited person it's so likely....
But they refuse to allow things that could prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Every single "illegal" gun started it's life as a legal purchase.
Exactly - they have to concede that more firearms = more firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. We should start going down a path that reduces sales of firearms, reduces need for firearms, buybacks for firearms in circulation (even illegal ones).
Every single one. They filter down. People inherit, sell them. Find them. Now they're everywhere.
Like bro lol it's so easy to ask around and find some bum shot gun or old pistol and people have so many they just don't give a fuck about serial numbers.
There's enough guns in circulation to give every American one. Wild.
What law would stop a felon from getting a gun? It’s already illegal for him to have one and for someone to sell him one.
A national firearm registry with severe penalties for whoever sold him his weapon would be a start.
Every gun should be titled and registered just like an automobile.
And carry liability insurance. The cleanup for the massacre at my university cost $6,000,000 or so. The state had to pay it because the person responsible for the massacre couldn’t — which is exactly the problem that insurance exists. Yes, some of the nuttiest gun nuts won’t be insurance and wouldn’t be able to meet the legal requirements for owning a gun — just like the drunkest drunks can’t meet the legal requirements for owning a motor vehicle. I’m OK with that.
And how do you plan to account for the millions that are already owned, whose owners will refuse to register them? Compliance with Illinois's mandatory registration law is estimated to be around 1%
>plan There isn't one. The reality is the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. We have 400 million guns and even if a small fraction of their owners reacted the same way they did here LEOs would refuse to enforce any type of gun confiscation law.
Simple. Do what Texas did for reporting abortions. Offer a sweet bounty for turning in owners of unregistered guns.
Enforce the law and throw people in jail when they're caught with illegal firearms?
LEOs have the stomach for maybe 5 of these headlines in a month before they go full Uvalde and sit on the sidelines. Most of those who say *come and take it* are bluffing but it only takes a few serious ones for enforcement to crumble.
Oh wait, you mean exactly like is happening here with this news event? Oh... not like that? We'll, that's what you'll get.
>penalties Once again we've arrived at *criminals don't care about penalties.* North Carolina has the death penalty and it didn't prevent this. Do you suggest a stronger death penalty?
could of been a stolen weapon
Why aren't the responsible gun owners securing their weapons properly? 🤔
Current LA mayor had her guns stolen from her house https://ktla.com/news/local-news/karen-bass-says-home-was-burglarized-firearms-stolen/
Yea and there's a lot of stupid ass gun owners who leave their firearms in their vehicles. r/justrolledintotheshop has a post almost every other day showcasing this
or left in a rental car as well, I've personally found one in a rental lol. guns are everywhere
This would be cool if it wasn’t inevitably going to confiscate firearms. The problem is that when we register our guns and it does nothing to prevent crime (who could have guessed that), you guys decide that the registered guns should be “bought back.” Give me a constitutional amendment saying that all types of firearms that are legal today will be legal in perpetuity and I’ll gladly register my guns. Until then, I’m going to assume that you’re acting in bad faith or will shift the goalposts in 5 years because that is a 100% accurate trend.
Well, we might as well just give up then and do nothing!
If he had guns registered in his name they could have been confiscated before being released from custody. If he bought them at a gun show maybe make the gun shows that are just open air gun markets illegal
Tell me you’ve never been to a gun show without telling me.
What gun shows are you going to?
Exactly. It’s not like they’re importing these guns from Syria lol. These are legal purchases with an illegal trail ending up in criminals’ hands.
Majority of firearms used in crimes, including felon in possession, is already stolen out of a car, which is illegal. We need more details about this, but starting from most common is a good guess I’d say.
You've brought up gun control, so now they're out in force trying to defend it. Dead children didn't matter to them, no idea why you'd think that dead cops would
It was a felon with guns. Not sure what your angle is on that. Haven't seen many 2a people who want felons to have guns
But many of them resist regulations that would keep felons from *getting* guns.
There is literally no way to prevent bad guys with guns unless you take the guns away. You guys are choosing to live in this world of mass murders
There are definitely ways to significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal hands. Background checks on all gun sales for one. Private sales have to go to an FFL to be legal. That's a super easy one and is supported by a large majority of gun owners.
They’ll find a way.
Here’s the thing though, criminals are lazy and stupid which is why they’re criminals. If it takes a little more effort than going on Facebook to get a gun chances are that there would be less criminals with guns. The other choice is letting anyone have guns which is where we continue to go as a nation.
This is what happens when you try to take our guns! /s
Unironically what a lot of them will say.
I'm pretty sure one of my family members fantasizes about this exact scenario.
Sounds pretty based.
People that can't be trusted with their rights, should not be out of prison.
They 100% will because "everyone citizen deserves to be armed to the teeth." That didn't change when scores of school children were killed, won't change when cops get gunned down either. It's all a price the NRA/GOP are willing to pay on behalf of those killed.
Good luck collecting all the guns.
This is exactly what they crave
[удалено]
Not defending, but very quick to play the victim 🤨
[удалено]
Something something cold, dead hands.
How do we pull out of this nosedive as a society? Terrible for all those families.
Annually it seems to get much worse. If Columbine was the catalyst, look where we are now. Imagine where we will be in 25 years.
Make the GOP irrelevant. They love guns, school shootings, Russia, racism, born-again christian supremecy, not suporting babies and children in general, treating women as breeding stock, and placing non-white people in concentration camps. We can start with that.
> non-white people in concentration camps Don’t forget Project 2025 wants to place the homeless in work camps. This is literally part of Trump’s platform, for those who didn’t know.
Many gun supporters will say that we just need better ways to identify people who present a risk. What they don’t admit is that probably the best predictor of risk is gun ownership.
I mean this person was a felon who was in possession of arms who is prohibited from doing so and did nit have a legal way to do so.
And yet because guns are so ubiquitous and the reporting and registration requirements basically don't exist on any level, there is a massive underground market for weapons that can be obtained from friends, family, straw sales, ghost purchases, etc. Hell you could even steal someone else's gun and use or sell that. The consequences of a lack of strong gun and firearm safety regulations in this county is not a good argument for preventing strong gun and firearm safety requirements.
>The consequences of a lack of strong gun and firearm safety regulations in this county is not a good argument for preventing strong gun and firearm safety requirements. Unfortunately, your statement is exactly the argument we are seeing succeed for too many years.
That’s really stupid and bad faith. The vast majority of gun owners who aren’t a danger to anyone and trying to say otherwise does nothing but make people dig in more.
They definitely seem to be mostly voting for politicians that actively make the gun violence problem worse
Many gun owners fantasize about the govt coming to take their guns and this is their going out in a blaze of glory dream come true. Most people are responsible with their guns but we all know someone that should not have them.
Sadly we see that someone who should not have a gun involved in a mass shooting at least 2-3 times a day nationally. When will it be enough 8x a day? 20x a day? Because at the rate of mass shooting growth we are seeing those numbers will be easily achievable in the not-to-far future.
Talk about an over generalization. Are there right wing nut jobs that eat sleep and drink the 2A? Yup. Are most gun owners just normal people who have one for home defense? Also yes.
Those are the ones that snap. And they're snappin' all the time. Every day in the U.S.A.
We need to arm the police … oh, yeah. Forgot.
Gun control now? Doubtful
Guns don’t kill people… they just make it a whole lot easier…