3 hours for police to take this guy out?
its not like this happened on breivik island, 3 hours seems really incompetent..
im sick of all this our brave first responders crap..
>>77091734
He had hostages. Standoffs like that take a long time to deal with.
>>77091800
its a standoff when someone takes hostages but hasn't hurt anyone yet
as soon as he kills somone its an active shooter..
>>77091734
Politically correct policing takes time anon. The cops/agents could lose their jobs and be subject to federal investigation if they don't follow proper social justice procedures.
Yes
The police should have raided as soon as they got there
It makes the shooter concentrate on the police
More people probably would have survived too due to getting to the hospital quicker
Police fucked up big, and no one is talking about it
>>77091800
To be honest that is still stupid as fuck.
We speak about muslims here they take hostages to have more time to kill people.
We should know by now that no hostage will come out alive if we wait.
He had a ton of hostages and they thought he had bombs.
>>77092120
This is what happens when they can't properly "profile" what's going on for fear of being racist.
It was the same in France - had they known it was a bunch of muzzies itching to set off their vests in a blaze of glory they'd have rushed it sooner.
What's weird is that the body count was at 20 at one point and the shooter allegedly had around 30 hostages he was using as a human shield; then all of a sudden "Shooter is dead but the body count has risen to 50"
>>77091734
>3 hours for police to take this guy out?
This, fucked up.
>>77091973
He killed people from the start.
>>77092780
>He killed people from the start.
And the idea is when he takes hostages, you don't want to make him kill any more.
So police only rushes in if he kills a hostage.
>>77092746
maybe they sent in the FSB
>>77091973
>its a standoff when someone takes hostages but hasn't hurt anyone yet
Its still a standoff if he has more people he can kill.
If you want it done quick with as many casualties (police, hostages, etc.) call Spetsnaz.
>>77092851
if it was really thier ROE thats just fucking fucked
at no time should it ever go back to a standoff after the first person is killed...
one of the first fucking beat cop with actual bravery could have saved 30 people here
or died himself yeah, but thats his job..
>>77091973
who still has more people he can kill, idiot
It takes time to establish that the Police are not being racist and give them proper sensitivity and tolerance training before they can act. Otherwise someone's feelings could have been hurt which is terrible!
>>77091734
>this guy
>implying there was only 1 shooter when multiple witnesses claimed otherwise
topjej
>>77091734
They should have taken longer considering the people he held hostage are literally without value. They're faggots, it's not like they have children to go home to or families to care after; once they die their families genetic legacy dies with them in a pile of stale cum and AIDs and our tax dollars are going toward paying people to protect a genetic dead end?
Swat teams probably aren't on high alert ready to go 24/7 and they are the only ones trained to storm a building in such a situation without all of them dying
It took time for them to gear up and be briefed on the situation / given the layout of the club / formulate a working plan
>>77091734
Police and SWAT do not rush into hostage situations guns blazing. That's a good way to get a lot of hostages and cops killed. The gunman said he was taking hostages to give himself more time to kill clubgoers, meanwhile the cops were operating in good faith waiting for a list of demands. I suspect going forward the MO will be to go in shooting, no more negotiation similar to hijackers in airplanes post 9/11.
>>77093641
Fucking this. Orlando Police aren't used to experiencing raids. Especially @ 2~3 in the goddamn morning. If this were miami with all the spics sure before nah.
T. Florida man
>>77092892
No i don't think so, apparently the club still stands and a few actually survived
If you pretend you have a bomb it postpones all actions a large amount.
Same if you have hostages. It's not as simple as just run in and shoot the guy.
>>77091800
They also suspected a bomb so they evacuated the area
>>77093641
>Swat teams probably aren't on high alert ready to go 24/7
well they should be in any fucking major city.. they could be working as beat cops with the gear in the trunk ready to go
infact why not train ALL cops for swat duty ?
>>77094454
It takes time and money for a situation that happens very rarely.
They also used a special tank-like vehicle to storm the building, it takes time to get that ready.
Even if the cops were trained, it probably wouldn't cut the time down that much. They still have to secure blueprints to the club, figure out what the fuck to do, and make sure their entrance isn't going to make things worse.
It's not as simple as your video games where you burst in guns blazing.
>>77094454
the less SWAT fags the better.
>>77095940
#blacklivematter pls go
cry over a poopstika
>>77094883
>It takes time and money for a situation that happens very rarely.
well the rest of the time they can be rounding up niggers and shit
>>77091734
Our police have zero duty to protect us unless we are 100% in their custody according to our Supreme court.
At the end of the day they protect their own lives first, as a rule if thumb. Cant really blame them i guess but dramatic sacrifices cops or brave acts cops make in similar situations lIke this are the exception not the rule.
Based on logic and the most likely demographics 90% of the dead were probably supporters of black lives matter and all of their destructive view and behaviors tbhfampai.
>>77097235
>Our police have zero duty to protect us unless we are 100% in their custody according to our Supreme court.
Let this bullshit myth die. Police have a general duty owed to society not to individuals in society. You don't get a personal security force with the police. You have pay extra money for that.
>>77097235
>Our police have zero duty to protect us unless we are 100% in their custody according to our Supreme court.
that means they can't be legally liable if they fail at their job, you dumb tinfoiler
to serve and protect is the purpose of police
>>77097367
>>77097803
You two just agreed with me and are arguing semantics. It's not a myth.
>>77097803
To serve and protect was a phrase created by an lapd cop as part of propoganda, not policy.
>>77097803
>that means they can't be legally liable if they fail at their job
That's correct, and the Supreme Court case that led to that assertion is based on that very concept. GROSS NEGLIGENCE of a cop leading to civilian deaths, result was ultimately no liability. They're not required to protect and not responsible if they don't.
Things may be different in Canada, but in the US, that's the Supreme Court ruling on the concept. Unless you have a signed contract where the police provided effectively private protective services at events, there is no obligation or standard of care they're expected to perform at.
>>77091734
>sealed beams
>current year
>>77098226
>You two just agreed with me
The only plausible means you can believe we agreed with you is if you function under some misconception that you are not a part of the society police owe duty to. You may call it semantics but lawfags call that a nuance. A critical nuance. One that makes or breaks a case in court. The general duty of police officers is just like the governor of your state owes you a duty of executing the law, he doesn't owe you a personal duty. Just because the governor doesn't have to come to your door or answer your call whenever you complain about a nonfeasance or malfeasance doesn't change the existence of that duty.
>>77092120
Ironic user name ? LOL
>>77098657
>the Supreme Court case that led to that assertion is based on that very concept.
The Supreme Court found that the police owe the general public a duty of protection but not an individual duty of protection. Without some evidence of specific individual protection, a special relation, between the police department and the individual suing for damages, there is no duty owed beyond what the police owes society in general.
>not responsible if they don't.
Special relationship has already been mentioned but you can also look at the state created danger doctrine. Such as Kennedy v. Ridgefield.
>>77099304
>>77091734
50+ wounded
50 killed
Dudes ratio is off the chain. Not to mention he hit some, I guess, more than 10 times. He was loaded down, ready for war.
Also,
>dude walks into gun store
>i need a rifle, a pistol and 5000 rounds pronto
Uh ok.
>>77098877
First responders have a responsibility to show up to an emergency if called, but nothing more. A bad cop could get fired for not doing something that is policy but it's not illegal
Not illegal= duty only in name and not with the weight of law.
A cop could wait outside the location of an emergency situation and if he feared for his life and chose not to engage it is completely justified
Saying that there is a 'duty to society' but not a duty to protect an individual is saying that the duty is really nothing at all and that they have no responsibility to protect anyone, just to be around if something happens. So again, no need to engage situations=no duty to protect.
>>77091734
>im sick of all this our brave first responders crap..
then become a cop and show them how its done?
>>77098226
>>77098657
Here's another analogy for you two to help understand this, if you aren't already closed-minded on the issue.
Corporate in-house counsel is roughly similar. They work for the corporation so their duties are owed to a legal fiction, the corporation. If you work for the corporation and get into a court case that may involve or damage the corporation in some way, in-house counsel will represent you, effectively protecting you in the court case. They may lose but because they owe their duty to the corporation and not you, the employee, you cannot sue them for malpractice, aka professional negligence.
>>77091800
Iranian embassy in london.. textbook case study. It wasnt even on the ground floor.
>>77100177
Buying ammo in bulk (at least online) is the most cost effective way to get it.
>>77100260
>Not illegal= duty only in name
>Saying that there is a 'duty to society' but not a duty to protect an individual is saying that the duty is really nothing at all
Wrong. See corporation analogy below. Counter-example: In-house counsel's duty the corporation, and by corollary its employees, is not only in name but in writing, just like a police officer's is. Just because neither the police officer nor in-house counsel held personally liable for failing you does not make that duty any less real or binding.
>>77097367
>Let this bullshit myth die. Police have a general duty owed to society not to individuals in society.
There are two Supreme Court decisions confirming this
It isn't a myth
how it's done in real country's!
>>77100662
>There are two Supreme Court decisions . . .
That idiots misunderstand. One of which explicitly states police owe a duty to protect written in it over and over again but gets cherry-picked around. The Castle Rock one if I recall correctly.
>>77098657
MEANS YOU CANT SUE EM
they can still be fired
>>77100563
>Wrong. See corporation analogy below.
Actually try reading the case law instead of irrelevant strawmen.
Police are there to help clean up the bodies and make arrest of people who are breaking the law.
Why do you think the Detroit police get away with putting out official statements saying "if you come here good luck you're on your own"
>>77101135
>Actually try reading the case law instead of irrelevant strawmen.
Hello? Who brought up Caste Rock? Why don't actually address the point instead of resorting to an ad hominem?
>>77100772
>That idiots misunderstand. One of which explicitly states police owe a duty to protect written in it over and over again but gets cherry-picked around.
No
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004
>>77101236
>does not have a federal constitutional duty
Stopped reading here. Police departments are state agencies. They don't have a federal constitutional duty to protect. They have a state one.
>>77101215
>Hello? Who brought up Caste Rock? Why don't actually address the point instead of resorting to an ad hominem?
Because you aren't making a point.
http://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html
>>77101381
>Because you aren't making a point
I'm not making a point simply because I disagree with you? Do you honestly expect me to take such arbitrary bullshit seriously?
Warren was the other one. What part of this case are you relying on? Or are you just throwing it up there hoping to prove I hadn't read it because I didn't specifically name it as the other one?
>>77101334
>Police departments are state agencies. They don't have a federal constitutional duty to protect. They have a state one.
No they don't
The suit was regarding the actions of state police which showed up and left fulfilling their duty to respond.
And the supreme Court ruled in the cops favor that what they did was their duty and the state held zero liability.
Don't bitch about current case law if you refuse to read it nigger.
>>77101530
>I'm not making a point simply because I disagree with you
No because you aren't making a point against current case law and openly admitting to refusing to read up on it.
>>77092120
>GAY
AHAHAHAHAH
>>77101615
>No they don't
[citation needed]
It seems you understand how to provide citations so I'll leave you to it.
There is no federal duty owed by state police agencies thanks to federalism. States have GENERAL police powers. The federal government has RESTRICTED or LIMITED police powers. The federal government cannot send the FBI to arrest you for breaking a state law. It has to be a federal law.
>And the supreme Court ruled in the cops favor that what they did was their duty and the state held zero liability.
No question has been raised about _what_ happened but there has been raised a question of your understanding of _why_ it happened.
>>77101694
>No because you aren't making a point against current case law
Because your understanding of the opinion is not and cannot be anything but perfect? You are not possibly misunderstanding what is explained?
Let's test this out. What are the four (five) elements that an individual needs to prove in court to be successful in a negligence claim?
How many of the killed were shot by police?
>>77091734
>3 hours for police to take this guy out?
yes, which proves precisely why we need the rights to defend OURSELVES, the cops cannot.
my sides
>>77101694
Well, since you didn't provide a passage from the Warren case allow me.
>A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources.
In other words, there are times when the duty owed to society will not meet every request for protection.
>At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public.
In other words, perhaps a celebrity will have greater need for police protection, or a farm that feeds most of the city. In either case, the basic nature of police duty stays the same.
>when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.
In other words, when a city or state establish a police department the PD owes a duty only to society or "the public at large."
Your problem is you equate a lack of specific duty as evidence of a lack of any duty without regards to the clear and express parts of the opinions you cite that they own a general duty.
>>77103299
>they *owe a general duty.
>>77101381
>>77101615
Here's another interesting one that is being cherry-picked around. Especially interesting because it clearly addresses the line of argument that perpetuates this myth.
>The public duty concept has drawn some criticism for purportedly creating the rule that: "`Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'" Riss v. City of New York, supra at 585, 293 N.Y.S.2d at 901, 240 N.E.2d at 862 (Keating, J., dissenting). A duty owed to the public, however, is no less enforceable because it is owed to "everybody." Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rightsboth formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-121.
It is almost always funny when an anon suggests others should "read the case law" and then get shown they failed to read the case law.
>>77100331
>comparing the SAS to amerifat nog blasters
come on
