Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3460352" data-attributes="member: 39593">Not standard procedure, but not necessarily for any reason other than inertia and ingrained behavior. Ultimately I think this is just a difference in the way we favor law-enforcement working overall.  The victims are dead, a few hours doesn't matter to them, and rounding up suspects without physical evidence is usually the first step to a railroaded trial and another statistic for the innocence project.  Since most killers aren't going to kill again and will have ditched their weapons they aren't a continuing threat no pressing need to pick them up immediately exists.  If there's any evidence you can get them later when you round up the usual suspects and it won't be a major issue.  Whereas an armed gunman on premesis is extremely volatile.  I won't say it's easy or even that there's a good chance of success, but if they don't even make the attempt they're negligent.  Simply put I do not honor the concept of forgiveness when a matter is so agregiously severe, if the standard procedure fails in the most unlikely circumstance it still fails.  And those involved must still suffer for the failure.  It was their obligation to make the attempt even if they failed.  And they jumped to a conclusion and began investigating the incident based on an entirely false understanding which resulted in many further deaths.  Some mistakes are so serious you may never be allowed another one.Absolutely it's an almost preposterously rare thing to happen.  I just find that police procedure in general is based on things that I do not agree with and that the insistence to immiedately rush out and begin questioning people and building theories before they get any physical evidence back is counterproductive and not conducive to actually figuring out what actually happened.</blockquote>

Verification