United States Cowardice in the face of hostile fire is now official policy of CBP & DHS

Discussion in 'Border Controls, Customs and Immigration' started by Mike, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It's OK to tase and beat an illegal Mexican immigrant to death, as they did in the case of Anastacio Hernandez Rojas, but their official policy is now to run and hide when confronted with an "active shooter".

    What a completely useless bunch of totally worthless cowards!!!!!!!!!!! Assault the defenseless, otherwise run & hide!!!!!!!!!!!

    Fox News: Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen
     
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Would that mean that TSA Air Marshalls can't engage a terrorist if they shoot first?
     
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    They would have to call law enforcement, which would mean waiting until the wheels are down on a runway to use their cell phones. :D

    If the plane is Wi-Fi equipped I suppose they could send email, but if they try to use Skype the flight attendants surely will berate them for violating the TOS of the internet provider by using VOIP. ;)

    Law enforcement personnel need to be wusses a lot more than they are, but this is just plain stupid.
     
  4. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Agreed Mike, why would you arm them and send them through LEO school if you are not going to let them respond for the sfety or those around them (and themselves) in a hot situation? The civvies? I can understand that, the employees that do not have the LEO school and are unarmed, I can see that, as it is common sense. Armed Federal LEOs hiding in a hot situation, instead of responding to end it is simply unacceptable.
     
  5. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Still hoping they'll give you and your cow-orkers guns, huh?
     
  6. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I actually rather prefer not being armed, I have had that job and it requires split second decisions that can end in someone being dead - to include myself. Another point is that the job does not require me to be armed in my duties. They already have some armed members for TSA/DHS, and I am not one of them.
     
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    DHS/TSA doing their normal thing, screwing up anything and everything possible.
     
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    So if DHS/TSA started issuing guns to employees in your current position, you'd quit?
     
  9. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Not necessarily, but I would prefer to remain in an unarmed position at this point. It would hinge on what the position entailed, not just the fact that I would be armed.

    I think by Federal standards, I am too old to transition into an armed position without being currently employed in one. If they changed the job position to armed, it would create a much larger turnover than you might expect (seriously, like an 80% turnover). Plus it would mean the entire selection of folks that would be armed, would be required to go to FLETC and undergo at least the basic LEO course, which is 4 months minimum I believe (don't quote me on that one, because I am not certain on how long their rookie school is now). I may not have a choice in quitting or not.
     
  10. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Don't FLEO's have mandatory retirement at age 57?
     
  11. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I thought the question was pretty clear. "...in your current position."

    Sure. Just like your current set of cow-orkers have all had their required background checks, and they've all received the mandatory training.

    Riiiiiight.
     
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    TSA: Home of the Pedo Priest
     
  13. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I believe that is correct, according to the DOJ regs here:

    http://www.justice.gov/jmd/ps/chpt1-6.html

    They also have a maximum entry age of 37, but there are some waiver situations.
     
  14. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I would not quit, I still feel as though I am making a difference (however small it may be) - however, I do not see a legal way for them to do that. It would change the search protocols, it would change the hiring process and certification, it would require a pretty huge budget increase and they would lose at least half of the workforce in the first round of training.
     
  15. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    A difference in what?

    If you think you're making a difference in actual passenger safety, you should be aware that (statistically speaking) you are almost infinitely more likely to catch one of your cow-orkers stealing from the passengers (or molesting them, or otherwise abusing their trust) than to discover an actual terrorist device or item passing through your checkpoints.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  16. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Owning up to that is probably SSI.
     
    TravelnMedic and Lisa Simeone like this.

Share This Page