you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

First of all, they got radios. He knew cop number 2 was a second behind him. So have the tactical patience to group properly.

Designate a lethal guy and a non lethal guy.

In the future, train actual hand to hand to trap an arm holding a weapon and neutralize it.

We don't pay police to kill us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    So have the tactical patience to group properly.

    Ah. The Uvalde Gambit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Uvalde was a shooter attacking children while police stood by. This is a completely different situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.

    I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.

    This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.

    Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.

    That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.

    "Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Oh so those are the choices? No engagement at all until a third party intervenes or charging in like a Call of Duty player?

    That's not a good faith argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The other choice is what most humans would do. That's remove yourself from what you perceive as a dangerous situation. I know it hurts fee fees when ego is on the line but better than killing someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment