It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Border Patrol Agents Are Being Trained To Run Away And Hide If Someone Starts Shooting

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 



Stop looking at it from a Democrat/Republican problem that is how we are divided, my point to that was the Bush rhetoric about illegal immigration and nothing was resolved.


Our laws are not being enforced. The recent ruling in Arizona has further limited enforcement of current law and our border patrol agents are underfunded and misallocated.


I actually agree with closed borders and the deportation of each and every illegal (otherwise why call it illegal alien?). But do not restrict me or my ability to move through the country I was born in, EVER!

This is a sore spot with me as a week before my birthday I flew to California (Unfortunately) was there through my birthday and was not allowed to fly back (after a (&%#ing 4 hour delay by TSA UNDER THE BUSH ADMIN…) because my license had expired.


If you can’t prove who you are you will encounter problems traveling. How is it fascism when it’s your own fault?


Look at the bigger picture this is a two party problem…


You’re right, it’s an American problem and the republicans in Arizona and other states are the only ones trying to fix it. Bush certainly didn’t do much to fix it though and neither has Obama. TPTB don’t want it fixed, which is obvious when you read the OP.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
It's interesting you mention misallocation, then cite the OP where it's been shown these are training courses for desk job positions. That part was obvious. If this were even remotely true we'd be hearing it from more than one source.

Er wait... Is this thread still about the original topic? Or just a place to express our political divide, at this point?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I can see why people are considering this bunk. You asked several times what makes it bunk and as I have read no one actually gave you an answer(prior to me beginning to write this post), so, in giving my opinion of this topic I will do this for you.

The source you linked is to endoftheamer icandream. This is another conspiracy site that deals with Governmental topics. Basically what you have done is written a thread based on an opinion thread written on another forum, not a news source. This puts everything into question and therefore in order to get truth one must ignore what is written and follow that threads links for information. This is not what you have done. What you did was quote the thread writers words which takes away from any credibility.

Now, when one goes to the link that the thread was based on, ie local2544 you see in the headline of the site it states

This is not an official Border Patrol web site.
The contents are provided solely for our Union members.
Okay, on to the article posted on this site. As it is written, it is more of a rant rather than an official report to the members. Also it seems(my opinion) that this "rule" does not apply to the armed members of the Border Patrol, as they would be trained in combat situations. Also you have to understand that this is a financial situation as well. If a Union member is injured or killed in an engagement it brings in the financial and legal ramifications of the action. Therefore it leads me to believe this is nothing but the writers disgust in the "do not engage an enemy" training when they joined up to protect our boarders. Don't get me wrong, this is a valiant sentiment but safety always comes first.

So with all this information it shows that this "teaching technique" has been blown out of proportion and therefore can be seen as bunk. Does that help you in your understanding?

Edit to add: Now that "Fair and Ballanced" Fox News has picked it up and posted an official report on this situation here... www.foxnews.com... (Originally brought to light by Xcathdra in their thread). In their article they state

The FEMA-administered computer course, entitled “IS-907- Active Shooter: What You Can Do,” is a 45-minute tutorial that provides guidance to all employees on how to recognize indicators of possible workplace violence and what to do should their office be invaded by gunmen and focuses around three main options; either evacuate, hide out, or in dire circumstances, take action.
With this what I said about it not being meant for the armed Border Patrol is verified. It is specifically centered around "work place" situations. In these situations ie offices most employees, if not all, are not armed. Thus the statement to "throw something" if there is no other choice then contact authorities.

It has all been blown out of proportion and thus the argument is Bunk.


edit on 30-6-2012 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
A policy directive and law are 2 separate issues. They both can and do apply to employees of DHS, however law trumps policy in this regard.

To tell / state / suggest / infer / employ non verbal communications that an armed federal officer is not to engage in an active shooter situation is a joke and completely and totally reckless. First they stop enforcing immigration laws and now they want their commissioned / armed officers to ignore the laws that allow them to act.

While the jurisdiction of Federal Law Enforcement is restricted to enforcing Federal Law (exceptions exist but dont apply in this scenario), pretty much all states have statutes that cover federal / out of state law enforcement and their actions. In my state any federal officer or neighboring state jurisdiction can act in situations as if they were comissioned law enforcement of my state.

Every state have laws that allow a person to use force, up to and including deadly force, in order to defend themselves or a 3rd party- Law Enforcement as well as a private citizen / individual. An active shooter is a text book defintion of a threat to the individual as well as the general public at large (meaning they meet the criteria established to lawfully shoot a fleeing felon in the back if needed).

I would wager that should a situation like that arise that federal law enforcement will act and worry about the policy violation later. One could argue (probably unsuccessfully but still) that if an active shooter situation occurs outside the jurisdiction of CPB / Federal Law Enforcement, deadly force could still be used in their capacity as a private citizen.

Telling armed officers to run and hide and throw things does nothing but make them not only a target, but a higher value one as those people will be armed and have ammunition on them, which could prolong any active shooter situation.

In those scenarios the main goal is to end the threat as quickly as possible.

I would take the risk of losing my job...

Better to be tried by 12 rather than carried by 6.

With that being said, when did it become the offical policy of this Administration to protect criminals while placing unlawful burdens on their employees, up to and including termination should an employee decide they wish to live and not be executed?

The North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine assacre fundamentally changed the manner in which law enforcement responds and handles active shooter situations.

Apparently the Federal government thinks a bloodbath is much better than litigation.

More importantly - Please vote and take an active interest in your government, at all levels.




top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join