+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Yes, they are! Why when referencing our days in "Central," we type . . . "when we [were] cops!"

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    JP, centralizing PRT is a deployment error. Each district should have PRT officers on each platoon -- at least two -- so when a call like Varela's arises, district trained PRT can respond as expeditiously and safely as possible. When we were cops in "Central," Captain Robert "Bob" Windsor had Crime Prevention Units CPU on at least days and afternoon platoons. CPUs were there; unencumbered by calls for service, responding to priority calls that often evolved into major crimes.

    The same principle applies to PRT, with their major emphasis being on responding to 43 calls; particularly violent ones involving weapons, whether such are firearms, edged or blunt. The focus must always be on the person wielding the weapon and how to best neutralize him or her with minimum us of force, his or her aggression permitting.

    This. Hell, why not just train some of the PSS/PSU guys the same way? They are already a "proactive" unit, why not just give them PRT responsibilities too? Saves having to pull people from the road for a BS unit..

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    This. Hell, why not just train some of the PSS/PSU guys the same way? They are already a "proactive" unit, why not just give them PRT responsibilities too? Saves having to pull people from the road for a BS unit..
    As "generalist" advocates, we endorse any concept that minimizes depleting patrol. Acronyms are irreverent; what is, is maximizing effectiveness by multi-discipline trained personnel already in service. This will required careful analysis by command officers; all the way up to the Director. Sadly, as police officers ascend the promotional ladder, they generally embrace the specialized unit model, in lieu of the generalist. We believe this is all part of the "Peter Principle" Syndrome.

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    As "generalist" advocates, we endorse any concept that minimizes depleting patrol. Acronyms are irreverent; what is, is maximizing effectiveness by multi-discipline trained personnel already in service. This will required careful analysis by command officers; all the way up to the Director. Sadly, as police officers ascend the promotional ladder, they generally embrace the specialized unit model, in lieu of the generalist. We believe this is all part of the "Peter Principle" Syndrome.
    Jack of all trades, master of none. Yeah, exactly what we need to continue to do. Lets increase the liability to the officers who face insurmountable anti police rhetoric from the director to the sao.

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Jack of all trades, master of none. Yeah, exactly what we need to continue to do. Lets increase the liability to the officers who face insurmountable anti police rhetoric from the director to the sao.
    Sage one, what do you recommend?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •