Alaska SWAT

[tizzo]

I found this amusing.

They called SWAT for a single barricaded suspect. Who's this guy going to war against?

[ktech]

With 2 extra sidearm mags and 2 total mags for his long gun... nobody.

[Scratch]

Is that extra mag in the wrong way?

[tizzo]

Poor reference at all the gun control rhetoric I suppose.

[ktech]

Is that extra mag in the wrong way?

It looks like it's backwards to me - my thought is he would drop the mag and rotate it 180 degrees to put the fresh mag in.
Not sure why.

[Dave Timm]

I'm not sure why he would have his mags for his mp5 reversed liked that either. To me it seems that it would make the mag change more complicated. In regards to the going to war comment I guess I really don't get it. It's pretty common for a cop to carry spare handgun mags and also pretty common to deploy a long gun when confronting any known armed subject. There are numerous advantages to deploying a long gun even for residential, close encounters, and solo subjects.

[tman]

Our SWAT team was recently called out to a single barricaded subject with who had several firearms, including and AR. It's about containment sometimes.

[Prepared4Survival]

I have seen this before I believe the person had a scope on top and a holographic on the left hand side.. Even though it does have to be flipped around it keeps the extra mag on the right because the extra magazine wouldn't go into the gun with the sight on the left hand side (or blocked from seeing the sight one or the other) Anyways if you wanted it set up that way this was the only way to use two magazines at once.. ill try to find a pic or something..

[Dante]

I was watching Alaska State Troopers this weekend and there was a case of any ex-mil sniper who was off his meds and had been drinking, and had made threats against this spouse/gf. They went to the house, spoke to him for a while and when he stated he was not coming out, they advised the the woman to just stay away from the resodence and then they left.

I guess I wouldn't want to be the next person who stopped by but I have always found this approach interesting compared to what would go down here or most places, while I have heard of other cases where the same approach was taken - if they aren't actually breaking the law, leave them be (the other recent story was out of Wyoming).

Personally I think they are little too eager to go FULL SWAT all the time...

[tman]

I was watching Alaska State Troopers this weekend and there was a case of any ex-mil sniper who was off his meds and had been drinking, and had made threats against this spouse/gf. They went to the house, spoke to him for a while and when he stated he was not coming out, they advised the the woman to just stay away from the resodence and then they left.

I guess I wouldn't want to be the next person who stopped by but I have always found this approach interesting compared to what would go down here or most places, while I have heard of other cases where the same approach was taken - if they aren't actually breaking the law, leave them be (the other recent story was out of Wyoming).

Personally I think they are little too eager to go FULL SWAT all the time...

You've highlighted a very good point, but how do the police just say, though, "Ahh, this guy won't go postal if we just leave him be."

What if they're wrong?

The guy I mentioned shot himself BEFORE the SWAT team had deployed, but he DID know the police were outside the house. What's the risk, and who bears the liability if the police left him alone, and then he went out and shot someone else?

My personal beliefs tend to lie along the lines of what you say the Alaska Troopers did, but I couldn't just ignore the risk to public safety...

Anyone?

[jshuberg]

What's the risk, and who bears the liability if the police left him alone, and then he went out and shot someone else?

While there may be a public risk involved, the police could not be held liable if they decided to leave him alone, only to have him go nuts. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that when someone who's job it is to 'protect' the public fails to do so, that they did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. So far this applies to social workers (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) and police officers (Castle Rock v. Gonzales).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0

[Mn01r6]

What's the risk, and who bears the liability if the police left him alone, and then he went out and shot someone else?

While there may be a public risk involved, the police could not be held liable if they decided to leave him alone, only to have him go nuts. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that when someone who's job it is to 'protect' the public fails to do so, that they did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. So far this applies to social workers (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) and police officers (Castle Rock v. Gonzales).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0

To be fair, the police may get disciplined for violating policy and the chief may lose his job if the situation turns into a big enough fuster cluck...