They must be using some weak charges on those rubber bullets. The last time I heard it used was when it was first introduced, at a prison, and the marksman shot a rubber bullet through an inmate's thigh in a riot. Speed has results.
The problem with non lethal force is that people think it isn't violence or rather that the Authority has the right to authorize its use more than lethal force. All force and all violence is basically the same. If it isn't lethal, it soon will escalate to it. When physical violence is outlawed, then verbal violence reigns supreme, while people think they are non violent while being verbally violently in protests.
When verbal violence is outlawed in the form of PC, then physical violence becomes naturally used.
Humans are like a pressure cooker. Sooner or later, it wants to come out. Especially if someone rigged the cooker to blow up as a bomb, ala Marathon.
It's interesting to me that they've adopted this particular tactic from field artillery. It's not clear how it could possibly be justified as a matter of the law governing the use of force, but in actual warfare we do this all the time -- sometimes even with CS gas, as is being used here. It's a great way to protect a vulnerable flank during a maneuver, for example.
Hope nobody was sleeping with the windows open -- in August, in a poor neighborhood that might not be able to afford to air condition the house all night. Especially no one with medical conditions affecting their breathing. Or infants.
By placing fan systems in the house windows and sealing the frame with something, a negative air pressure system can be created in a house, so that external air particles outside cannot come in easily except along openings. I think they use the same concept on biohazard levels except they artificially pump air in to create over pressure.
If the air inside the house is hotter than outside, then hot air puts a bit more pressure vs the outside. Cool air settles on the bottom or basement level, so at the upper levels the pressure would push more outwards.
The police have long had this issue where they are afraid to engage and close with the target, even as their SOP demands that they get in range to shout Voice Commands and restrain suspects. Police tactics do exist and I know several civilian outfits busy training police units for the last 10 or 20 years. But it doesn't seem to change the system, only certain motivated individuals. Many of the police, especially the greenhorns, don't trust their police tactics, because the veterans have told them that the gun is more useful, and even the tazer is better than the various joint locks and what not. And the veterans know this because they tried using police tactical H2H and it failed them. So they rely on the gun, which is what they put most of their hours into.
But bodyguards and doormen at clubs engage in close contact with potentially drugged up violent people on par or with greater amounts than the police, yet they still utilize joint locks to effect and often don't have immediate backups, which can cause fatalities.
So the system or the police organization says to occupy and command obedience, but a lot of their tactics prefer "avoiding enemies and opening the range" to them, to avoid various problems they don't want to deal with.
This conflict between the tactics and the strategic objectives causes a lot of problems, which can be exploited by media propaganda for some other Leftist group.
If a LEO does not have sufficient grappling expertise or skill to prevent people 100-200 pounds from closing the gap and disarming them of their firearm, then stop carrying firearms. Carry something that can negate the advantage of the gorillas. Knives, short swords, long staffs, long swords, gauntlets to block incoming melee attacks.
But while individual warriors can outfit themselves according to their strength, the police are restricted to a One Look, One Firepower system as dictated by their higher ups.
Somebody grabbing your firearm is one thing, there are only a few counters available and most of it has to do with breaking the tools and source of the threat (limbs, brain, and soft tissues of enemy).
Somebody grabbing your sword, and the options to counter becomes a lot more, especially if you can draw your sword out or know counter disarm locks (as in aikido, people loved to grab people's swords before they got pulled out in feudal Japan, that's why they don't engage to handshaking distance when meeting Americans in WWI or 2).
With melee weapons, the user is required to close the distance to get in range of their weapon. So operating in 1-4 feet is mandatory, not something to be avoided. This is how other police forces can engage suspects, without superior numbers, and still survive without being hurt, and arresting the suspects. Their "personal authority" is increased by the fact that their warrior skills outmatch the foe, so the foe submits.
If all the police can count on is "firepower" then their body language exudes fear, which says "don't get any closer, or I'm going to have to use my tool to protect me". This doesn't project force over an area or deters violence in an area. It just makes the police look weak, that their power is only in the gun. Take the gun, and the police is no longer a threat. That's the idea people get.
People generally go the route of the least resistance. If they can run away from a firearm, they probably will. But if they think they got a better chance running 21 feet towards an officer, vs running 5 miles away and then getting shot down, they might choose to close and fight, rather than run away. So unless the police can demonstrate that people will get more dead and maimed the closer they get to the police, people are more and more figuring out that charging firearm users is the better option. Which increases fatalities and injuries on parties.
This is that whole strategic and tactical conflict in priorities. Police tactics are insufficient for their stated objectives.
They have the money to improve training. There are loads of civilian organizations and agencies that focus solely on training for H2H range. And there are others like Frontsight that are superior in the firearms training department than either the DEA, IRS, CIA, put together. But all that money goes to police unions, which goes to Democrats, which then comes back in the form of DHS funding for SWAT teams. To keep their swat teams up, they need to manufacture a pretext or justification. They need it to fight terrorists? So where are the terrorists they are successfully killing? If there are none, DHS might route money elsewhere. They can't have that. So they manufacture terrorists like Tea Party and militia groups. They are now the Enemy. And there are a lot of them, which is good, since SWAT teams won't run out of funding.
And that's merely the "simplest explanation". That doesn't go into second tier conspiracy effects.
5 comments:
I guess the people that died at WACO weren't so needlessly paranoid after all.
As well as all those preppers buying up gas masks.
They must be using some weak charges on those rubber bullets. The last time I heard it used was when it was first introduced, at a prison, and the marksman shot a rubber bullet through an inmate's thigh in a riot. Speed has results.
The problem with non lethal force is that people think it isn't violence or rather that the Authority has the right to authorize its use more than lethal force. All force and all violence is basically the same. If it isn't lethal, it soon will escalate to it. When physical violence is outlawed, then verbal violence reigns supreme, while people think they are non violent while being verbally violently in protests.
When verbal violence is outlawed in the form of PC, then physical violence becomes naturally used.
Humans are like a pressure cooker. Sooner or later, it wants to come out. Especially if someone rigged the cooker to blow up as a bomb, ala Marathon.
It's interesting to me that they've adopted this particular tactic from field artillery. It's not clear how it could possibly be justified as a matter of the law governing the use of force, but in actual warfare we do this all the time -- sometimes even with CS gas, as is being used here. It's a great way to protect a vulnerable flank during a maneuver, for example.
Hope nobody was sleeping with the windows open -- in August, in a poor neighborhood that might not be able to afford to air condition the house all night. Especially no one with medical conditions affecting their breathing. Or infants.
By placing fan systems in the house windows and sealing the frame with something, a negative air pressure system can be created in a house, so that external air particles outside cannot come in easily except along openings. I think they use the same concept on biohazard levels except they artificially pump air in to create over pressure.
If the air inside the house is hotter than outside, then hot air puts a bit more pressure vs the outside. Cool air settles on the bottom or basement level, so at the upper levels the pressure would push more outwards.
The police have long had this issue where they are afraid to engage and close with the target, even as their SOP demands that they get in range to shout Voice Commands and restrain suspects. Police tactics do exist and I know several civilian outfits busy training police units for the last 10 or 20 years. But it doesn't seem to change the system, only certain motivated individuals. Many of the police, especially the greenhorns, don't trust their police tactics, because the veterans have told them that the gun is more useful, and even the tazer is better than the various joint locks and what not. And the veterans know this because they tried using police tactical H2H and it failed them. So they rely on the gun, which is what they put most of their hours into.
But bodyguards and doormen at clubs engage in close contact with potentially drugged up violent people on par or with greater amounts than the police, yet they still utilize joint locks to effect and often don't have immediate backups, which can cause fatalities.
So the system or the police organization says to occupy and command obedience, but a lot of their tactics prefer "avoiding enemies and opening the range" to them, to avoid various problems they don't want to deal with.
This conflict between the tactics and the strategic objectives causes a lot of problems, which can be exploited by media propaganda for some other Leftist group.
If a LEO does not have sufficient grappling expertise or skill to prevent people 100-200 pounds from closing the gap and disarming them of their firearm, then stop carrying firearms. Carry something that can negate the advantage of the gorillas. Knives, short swords, long staffs, long swords, gauntlets to block incoming melee attacks.
But while individual warriors can outfit themselves according to their strength, the police are restricted to a One Look, One Firepower system as dictated by their higher ups.
Somebody grabbing your firearm is one thing, there are only a few counters available and most of it has to do with breaking the tools and source of the threat (limbs, brain, and soft tissues of enemy).
Somebody grabbing your sword, and the options to counter becomes a lot more, especially if you can draw your sword out or know counter disarm locks (as in aikido, people loved to grab people's swords before they got pulled out in feudal Japan, that's why they don't engage to handshaking distance when meeting Americans in WWI or 2).
With melee weapons, the user is required to close the distance to get in range of their weapon. So operating in 1-4 feet is mandatory, not something to be avoided. This is how other police forces can engage suspects, without superior numbers, and still survive without being hurt, and arresting the suspects. Their "personal authority" is increased by the fact that their warrior skills outmatch the foe, so the foe submits.
If all the police can count on is "firepower" then their body language exudes fear, which says "don't get any closer, or I'm going to have to use my tool to protect me". This doesn't project force over an area or deters violence in an area. It just makes the police look weak, that their power is only in the gun. Take the gun, and the police is no longer a threat. That's the idea people get.
People generally go the route of the least resistance. If they can run away from a firearm, they probably will. But if they think they got a better chance running 21 feet towards an officer, vs running 5 miles away and then getting shot down, they might choose to close and fight, rather than run away. So unless the police can demonstrate that people will get more dead and maimed the closer they get to the police, people are more and more figuring out that charging firearm users is the better option. Which increases fatalities and injuries on parties.
This is that whole strategic and tactical conflict in priorities. Police tactics are insufficient for their stated objectives.
They have the money to improve training. There are loads of civilian organizations and agencies that focus solely on training for H2H range. And there are others like Frontsight that are superior in the firearms training department than either the DEA, IRS, CIA, put together. But all that money goes to police unions, which goes to Democrats, which then comes back in the form of DHS funding for SWAT teams. To keep their swat teams up, they need to manufacture a pretext or justification. They need it to fight terrorists? So where are the terrorists they are successfully killing? If there are none, DHS might route money elsewhere. They can't have that. So they manufacture terrorists like Tea Party and militia groups. They are now the Enemy. And there are a lot of them, which is good, since SWAT teams won't run out of funding.
And that's merely the "simplest explanation". That doesn't go into second tier conspiracy effects.
Post a Comment