A supervisor should not put his life at risk

[Alliat]

Hello guys,

I am wondering what you guys think about this subject. A supervisor should not put his life at risk. (We are not talking about 3.4) To give an example you are doing a raid at slums 4 with an SGT in charge of the situation he is the only supervisor. We know that there are multiple armed suspects inside Slums 4. We have one S.W.A.T agent in service that blows the door. Then rushes in with the sergeant right behind him.

We have 2 situations that can happen one the police forces win, and 2 the suspects win. If the suspects win the firefight the only commanding officer is down. So there will be no supervisor to lead the raid.
Is it not better to put a CPL- on the position of the SGT. So the SGT can focus on giving commands and positioning units instead of joining the firefight? Or do you say that "a good general fight with his man on the front lines?"

I am curious for your opinion please let me know.

Regards,
Alliat

 

[Walker]

A supervisor performs his duties like a normal officer, a higher rank should not mean he stays out of trouble. If anything a supervisor is more experienced with life threatening situations and would be better at dealing with them.

 

[kapi]

The Sergeant goes right behind the SWAT as he has the highest firepower out of all Officers, I get your point that if he dies no one can lead the operation but it depends on the situation and in most cases a SWAT and Remington rush is all that It takes to pacify a suspect.

 

[Jimmy]

It's personal preference, some supervisors will like to lead from the front. I generally prefer to lead from the rear and delegate responsibility for the breach to someone else but that's my choice.

 

[Exnem]

There's a reason why you have the title "Second in command"
For emergencies?

I get what you mean, but as walker pointed out.

a supervisor is more experienced with life threatening situations and would be better at dealing with them.

They're the ones to be first in line if they arrive at an incident, and outrank anyone there. (This is, if none of the officers have already intervened with the ongoing incident, then the supervisor will have to contact the commanding officer which is usually the first officer on-scene, about swapping places)

The police force lacks training in organization during emergencies, what I currently see from the police are a bunch of chickens with pistols and shotguns for heads.
If anything, the police department will have to continue working on making training sessions far more common in order to keep officers in shape.

What I would suggest in this case, is to implement a system which is rank based, and is mandatory for officers not on an inactivity notice.
These training sessions would then be held every month or so, on a weekend.
If an officer cannot attend to the training session, they would have to fill in a report, and possibly watch a training video, recapping last session.

There's a reason to why there are plenty of officers who still don't know the difference between left and right.
Lack of training.
Nuff said.

 

[Teemo]

A few reasons why supervisors should lead raids.

1) They have he highest figher power e.g Remmingtons .
2) They can't tell what the situation is and adapt to it if they are at the rear trying to make out what's happening.
3) If they rush , officers will more likely become "sheep" and follow so it prevents one cop going in at a time with no backup.

 

[Chrissy]

It's personal preference, some supervisors will like to lead from the front. I generally prefer to lead from the rear and delegate responsibility for the breach to someone else but that's my choice.

Less chance of getting gatted by some 12 year old danish kid ( @Feng Yamaguchi ) who is crouched behind a concrete barrier fuckfest

 

[rat]

A few reasons why IC shouldn't take lead in raids:

During combat unable to lead or organise officers

SWAT should be allowed to deal with it. No interference.

If they die there is a struggle to assume IC and thus disunity

Most of them can't fucking aim

Eh I do it because its funny xd

 

[.....]

@Alliat all of us know that Supervisors are more raid hungry than @Silent when he powergrows all day. They should lead raids if there is no SWAT

 

[Alfa1561]

Look at any police department and you won't see such a thing happen. The sergeant in most situations where a co-ordinated raid takes place is on the perimeter, co-ordinating forces, giving orders, etc. Now, if there's more officers needed to assist or a lack of units for the raid of course he should take part, and even in a regular raid he should be coming in behind units. Whoever is in charge of the situation should be the LAST person in, not the first. If a supervisor is there and isn't the one controlling the situation, then that's fine. But a supervisor on scene should be the one running and coordinating the scene, and should not be the first in for shooty shooty bang bang just because he's a higher rank. Watch episodes of Adam 12 and you'll see what I mean. The sergeant coordinates from the outside and only comes in when needed. Totally agree with you, supervisor in command of a situation should not go in first.

 

[Bnjemann]

A supervising officer should put his life at risk if this adds less risk to officers he is supervising.