Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
Why? In an active shooter, whats the point of guarding it? You lose a man in a crucial manpower/firepower situation. You probably only have 2-3 patrol cops available to go in during that 10 minute killing spree, you just gave up 1 extra good-gun in the fight about to go down.
If you see it, you know where it was. Tell a detective later once the guy is dead.
If you dont want it used against you, pick it up, this isn't a gang murder, we dont need prints, we need to stop kids from dying down the hall.
Your attitude towards this topic was the overwhelming attitude of police pre-Columbine, and it makes sense, as most police tactics are brought over from some part of military tactics.
And police work is NOT war, very different. However, the ONE time, and almost the only time, that role flips is an active shooter. Aggressive, hunting infantry-style tactics are taught to swat teams and cops for these type situations. No more surrounding a building and waiting on SWAT. No negotiating. You go in with whoever you got, hunt him down, and kill him. Fuck the crime scene, let detectives worry about that. If you see a gun, pick it up....you might need the ammo.
That is how it is taught.
you are speaking as if the crime is always as it was at the school...and you are using monday morning QB information.
You are guarding it for the shooter who dropped it may return for it.....you are guarding it as evidence.
Telkling a detective afterwards is deemed as second hand information and therefore has less weight in a court of law.
Fingerprints are necessary when there is more than one shooter...to determine who fired the deadly shot(s).
FYI....military policing has nothing to do with war. It has to do with enforcing laws on the military in a country where US laws are not enforceable.