The_Yoda said:
theprof00 said:
I'm pretty sure they peak through the window among a bevy of other actions.
Generic is saying they should send two cops from around the corner to check out the scene and make sure the call is legit. That is nonsense.
When we have devolved to a point where we have to check if our citizens are telling the truth, then society is lost.
When the marathon bombers were hiding out in my neighborhood, they didn't move in with 1 or 2 cops at a time. You know what happened when previously, a lone cop responded to suspicious activity in that same area? He was killed. After that they sent into 8 cops to respond to the scene in watertown, along with the military.
My point isn't that we should respond with over the top force to ensure safety. My point is that if someone makes a call about a potentially extremely dangerous force, it should be met accordingly. Swat has all sorts of high tech equipment. Long range mics, radio scanners (all cops have these), jamming equipment, night vision, and most importantly layers upon layers of bulletproof gear. Cops have a gun and a notebook.
|
Average SWAT response time is 20 to 30 minutes in metropolitan areas, an average beat cops response time in those same areas is 5 to 10 minutes, do you need a lot of fancy equipment to gather information? Sure it might help but does a jammer help you peak in a window? Would you rather have someone trying to help you within 5 to 10 even if said help is just getting a handle on what SWAT will be facing or wait 3 to 4 times as long before the process starts. Also regular police forces are armed with more than a gun and notebook. My cousin is a county cop in a rural county in Indiana and from what I understand he has access to all kinds of "toys".
Personally speaking if I were in such a situation I'd take any kind of help I could get as quickly as possible.
|
That's not the argument in question though is it? I'm all for fast response. His argument is send a cop in first, not because of response time, but "to verify".
