Police shooting caught on tape


PDA






Preacherman
October 1, 2005, 11:05 AM
See here (http://www.ksat.com/video/4447720/detail.html) for video of a suspect in Kerrville shot by police. The suspect exited his car carrying a gun, and did not obey police instructions, so he was shot. You'll see his mother carrying on about "why didn't they send someone to talk to him?", and so on... Certainly, based on the tape, the suspect wasn't pointing the gun at anyone: but I can also understand the officer not wanting to take any chances.

(BTW, this was in Kerrville, TX.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shooting caught on tape" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
c_yeager
October 1, 2005, 11:15 AM
I see no reason why they should have to let him get the first shot. He came out with a weapon and there is no reason to believe that he didnt intend to use it. This isnt some schoolyard game where he gets a free pass untill he actually points the firearm at someone.

mr_dove
October 1, 2005, 11:23 AM
The only problem i see with this kind of action is, what happens when the police show up on the scene of a shooting between a bad guy and a CCW holder? Shoot the CCW holder before asking any question?

The "shoot anyone with a gun out" attitude will inevitably lead to good guys getting shot. Good guys on the other hand will not actually point the gun in an unsafe direction.

Otherguy Overby
October 1, 2005, 11:30 AM
I've been there. I even looked for property around there. I like the area.

However, one thing I sure noticed was the great number of police in the area. To me, it was quite amazing. Fredericksburg, somewhat northeast of Kerrville seemed to have maybe 1/4 or 1/3 the number of police as Kerrville. Also it seemed there was a fairly high percentage of young, inexperienced police in both areas.

I guess police work is now a growth industry and with crime stats generally going down everywhere except inner cities, the chances of unsatisfactory public/police interaction are on the rise.

migoi
October 1, 2005, 11:56 AM
8 seconds of non-compliance to verbal commands, gun in hand, about a second prior to shot he brings his hands together in what looks to me to be the initial stages of going into an isoceles shooting stance. If it was your life on the line as the police officer, would you take any further chances with this non-compliant fellow?

I'm not sure what Mom wanted the police to give him a chance to do...get off the first shot?

As far as danger to legitimate CCW folks... I guess if you remain non-compliant to 8 seconds of verbal commands after the police arrive you're very likely to get shot.


migoi

skidmark
October 1, 2005, 12:10 PM
I see no reason why they should have to let him get the first shot. He came out with a weapon and there is no reason to believe that he didnt intend to use it. This isnt some schoolyard game where he gets a free pass untill he actually points the firearm at someone.

This flies in the face of all reason. As far as I could tell, the weapon was never raised, and therefore there was no iminent threat posed.

There is nothing I saw that indicated if he intended to use the weapon or not. I agree that having the weapon in his hand is cause for great concern, but I did not see anything that would support this as a "good" or "clean" shoot.

As I understand the rules for use of deadly force, you do get a free pass until you actually point the firearm at someone. There is nothing that indicated he had recently pointed at, or shot at, anybody. If that was the case, I missed it in the report. All I heard was that he had threatened to shoot himself because of some earlier case. "Threatened" not "had shot at himself" or otherwise endangered others.

I am bothered by the thought that it is OK for cops to shoot anybody that they have pulled over, for whatever reason, if all that is known/observable is the subject has any sort of weapon in hand. I am just as bothered by the thought that you can take your sweet time in deciding to follow the orders of a bunch of cops who seemingly have drawn down on you.

I've been shot at. I've shot at others. I've been threatened with all sorts of violence and fully believed the threat could and would be carried out. In all of those situations I was scared, and that certainly affected how I responded to the situation. I remember "rules of engagement" that said I had to be able to identify the specific person shooting at me, out of a whole villiage of folks shooting, before I could return fire at that specific target only. But those were the "rules of engagement." If I violated them, I got in trouble.

I did not see the "rules of engagement" followed.

stay safe.

skidmark

Werewolf
October 1, 2005, 01:12 PM
I see no reason why they should have to let him get the first shot.I personally am conflicted about this shooting. On the one hand I believe that the police should make every effort not to shoot when ever it is possible.

Officer safety is, of course, a factor that must be considered in every situation where an officer deals with the public or a citizen. Unfortunately in this day and age it seems that officer safety takes precedence over every other factor in any situation. That said - risk comes with the job - it's what they get paid for - it's what they volunteer for. Officer safety should not be the prime factor - citizen safety should (of course that is just my opinion and if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle). I also don't give a crap what the supreme a'holes in DC have to say about that particular aspect of the police either.

Should the police put their lives at unnecessary risk? Absolutely not. The problem, though, is deciding what exactly constitutes unnecessary risk. At what point does risk to the officer override risk to the public or a citizen (remember this is the USA - we're innocent until proven guilty).

In this case I saw no indication that the victim was going to shoot. Tuesday morning quarterbacking says to me that the point of unnecessary risk had yet to be reached.

On the other hand, having had a pistol pointed in my face at a distance less than a foot, I know that the ability to analyze a situation logically and rationally, quickly and accurately, pretty much goes out the door rather sooner than later - the adrenaline flows and the reptile brain takes over.

I was taught in the Army and by my father that any action is better than no action. I believe that is what happened here. Repeated and unresponded to commands lead to a hair trigger response by the officer. Understandable yes. Avoidable? Realisticly - probably not. LEO's are men - they experience the same fears in a life or death situation as everyone else and don't want to die anymore than anyone else does.

In the final analysis it boils down to if you've got a gun and you're in the presence of the police keep it holstered or immediately use it if that is your intent - CUZ there ain't no in between!

Rob1035
October 1, 2005, 01:23 PM
i'm curious, is it normal for car camera tapes to be made public?

3rdpig
October 1, 2005, 01:47 PM
If you're armed and the police show up and order you to drop your gun you have 3 options as I see it.

1. Drop the gun.
2. Hang onto the gun and probably get shot.
3. Hang onto the gun and shoot the police, at which time your life, as you've known it so far, is over.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

But I can understand why no one wants a family member shot. My father was shot by the police many years ago. My Dad wasn't a criminal but he had a tendency to go armed about the house and he drank way too much. He was fooling around in the garage, drinking, and some neighbor kids saw him with his gun and ran and told their parents. He didn't threaten anyone and didn't even see the kids, or did and didn't take any notice of them. The parents (who didn't like him) called the police who came by and ordered him to drop the gun. He didn't and they shot him. While he did have his gun in his hand he did not shoot at them or threaten them, just refused to drop the gun. The cop who shot him testified to that effect. He was probably to darn drunk to understand what was happening. Fortunately for him the cop who shot was either trying to kill him and was a lousy shot, or was trying to shoot the gun out of his hand and was a very good shot (He claimed the latter but I've never been sure). His right thumb was ruined and he damn near lost it. He pleaded Not Guilty (I can't remember the actual charges), lost the court case and spent 10 months in jail out of a 3 year sentence. This happened in a nearly crime free, upper middle class neighborhood. My Dad had no police record, was college grad and had a salaried full time job. Until the day he died he believed that the cops had no right to shoot him. I told him he was lucky he didn't get killed. While it didn't ruin his life it sure screwed it up for years.

Moral of my story is, if you're a law abiding armed citizen and the police tell you to drop the gun, then drop the gun!

PaladinVC
October 1, 2005, 02:42 PM
In this instance, based on what I've read here (Can't load the vid for some reason), I can see no reason to give the suspect the benefit of the doubt. Armed, uncooperative and already suspected of something (not sure what) is a recipe for a very unpleasant situation. I can't imagine a legitimate set of circumstances that would lead to that behavior in that scenario. Even a deaf mute who accidentally epoxied a squirt gun to his hand that morning would have tried to comply while attempting to communicate the situation to the officers.

But I share Werewolf's dilemma. It does seem that police safety is beginning to overshadow their duty in certain cases. On the one hand, I think the law enforcement profession is becoming more dangerous in some areas. Also, many people seem to want to see police as bad men who apply force recklessly. This makes it tougher for police to use force wisely. As the pendulum swings, however, it becomes possible for the police to use unnecessary precaution and pre-emptive force, and then attribute general outcry and censure to the bias that has already been identified in the media and the public.

In the police academy, we were told to expect to be a federal defendant at least once in our careers if we became municipal officers in a major metropolitan area. There are criminals who will escalate a confrontation to the lethal force threshold, and there are defense attorneys who will portray those criminals as victims of everything from racism to straight-up police machismo. Even in a "clean" shoot, we were told, we should expect a long, costly civil suit from the deceased's next-of-kin.

So the solution to escalating danger is to prepare yourself for these "malpractice" events, and once you're bolstered against them, to use whatever force is necessary to avoid personal danger and go home at the end of your shift. That might mean fighting tooth and nail once a fight begins, or it might mean shooting first and asking questions later.

As always, the conscience and judgement of the individual officer is the final word in any police action. A few examples culled from the media is hardly enough to demonstrate a trend or policy shift. But this is something that we and, more importantly, police organizations should be thinking about.

Personally, I have my hopes pinned on less-lethal technology, so officers can get that "phaser set to stun" and bring violent situations under control without the heavy consequences of a lethal force exchange.

magsnubby
October 1, 2005, 03:05 PM
Watch the video closer. He got out of the car with a weapon in his hand. He refused orders to drop the weapon. The weapon wasn't in plain view of the officers. He made a movement with his left as if reaching for the weapon. So what were they supposed to do? Waite for him to shoot first?

Let's change the scenerio. He turns towards the officers, raises the weapon, he refuses orders to drop the weapon, fires, strikes and kills an officer. Every one would be yelling "WHY THE $#&& DIDN'T THEY SHOOT THE #?%????

You disobay orders to drop a weapon, make a movement like you'r reaching for a weapon, you die. Period.

geekWithA.45
October 1, 2005, 03:25 PM
Would if have been a "good shoot" for a civilian?

James T Thomas
October 1, 2005, 03:25 PM
That suspicious hand movement is classified as a "furtive movement" in many states, and has resulted in quite a few "actors" being shot.

This is only the preliminary report on this incident, and I expect, if things go as usual, it will be given later that this guy was: high on drugs, had just fled the scene of some felony he committed, had left a suicide note at home for someone to find, etc.

I'm filing it away in the storage bin for later update.

Hobie
October 1, 2005, 03:26 PM
Why, when stopped, did he get out the car with the gun? He had no other reason to do so other than to do harm to somebody and that somebody was apparently only police officers. The tape doesn't show a lawful gun owner in conflict with anyone else, it shows a felony car stop in which the suspect gets out of the car with a gun and refuses to drop the gun (or set it down) when so ordered multiple times by uniformed officers.

I guess the big deal is that he's crippled, he's Latino, and they used a rifle. Hit in the mouth (we know what kind of shot was taken), he's darn LUCKY to be alive given a series of choices that brought him to this place and time. Choices HE made.

Yeah I bet his mom is genuinely upset. However, what kind of mom is having her minor children watch this with her ON CAMERA.

c_yeager
October 1, 2005, 03:30 PM
This flies in the face of all reason. As far as I could tell, the weapon was never raised, and therefore there was no iminent threat posed.

So let me get this straight. Some obviously unbalanced fellow is holding a weapon and ignores every instruction you give him despite the fact that you are covering him with a weapon, he walks towards you, and you wait for him to put the muzzle to your temple before you react? Maybe that works for you, but i wouldnt put anyone else in such an absurd position.

ExtremeDooty
October 1, 2005, 03:36 PM
Moral of my story is, if you're a law abiding armed citizen and the police tell you to drop the gun, then drop the gun!

It's as simple as that for me too. If he didn't have shooting someone in mind, why didn't he leave the gun in the car? How long does it take to snap a shot off if you've already got the gun in your hand even if it's at your side? And where is the rule that says you have to raise your whole arm and aim at someone to shoot a gun? Has no one here ever practised shooting "from the hip?" I have. With a flick of the wrist, this BG could have started shooting at the cops.

This BG set the stage when he got out of the car with the gun in his hand. I think the cops should be applauded for giving him a chance to drop the gun in the first place.

FireBreather01
October 1, 2005, 03:49 PM
About 15 years ago I once witnessed a somewhat similar episode such as this outside my apartment, albeit with a far different ending. A neighbor had been drinking and was waving a 357 S&W around threatening to shoot some unknown 'burglars'. When the deputies arrived, about 7 of them, they had the guy cornered against an outside apartment wall. He was holding the gun down, pointed towards his feet. It took about about a dozen commands from the deputies, lasting about 30 seconds, before he dropped the gun. I clearly remember two commands, "if you don't drop your gun, you WILL get shot!", and "drop it or you're going to die!".

I remember thinking at the time that the deputies showed amazing restraint. I have no doubts that had he made a similar move such as the guy did here, they would have shot him up. I think that's the main thing here - the furtive movement. This guy had the opportunity to drop the gun, he didn't and made an additional movement and was rewarded with a round in the head. I can't fault the cops in any way.

As far as the video being made public - even if they tried to keep it private, under the Freedom of Information Act it would have eventually been released.

Technosavant
October 1, 2005, 04:36 PM
And just how long does it take you to raise a weapon (already in your hand, by the way) and fire?

Almost no time at all. While "police safety" can be misused, I do not see this as being one of those times. Anybody with a couple brain cells to bang together knows that you do NOT, when stopped by the police, exit your vehicle with a weapon in hand.

It would be nice to know a bit more about this- was the deceased under the influence of alcohol or some other substance, what was the cause for pulling him over, etc. I would think that, as you stack the facts together, we see a young man who was not some blessedly pure young man who was on his way to mow his old grandma's lawn.

My condolences to his mother, but there are some actions a person can take that will result in death. This young man took them.

MDG1976
October 1, 2005, 04:41 PM
Suicide my cop.

Steam dragon
October 1, 2005, 06:04 PM
geekWithA.45 said: Would if have been a "good shoot" for a civilian?

LEOs ARE civilians. Well, at least they are supposed to be.

But, Geek, If the shot had been fired by a non LEO, EVERY THING ELSE remaining the same, police presence, dash cam, the works, only two things would be different.

1: dead suspect.
2: dead shooter.

The cops would have run out of ammo.

Oh, short answer to your question? No.

c_yeager
October 1, 2005, 06:09 PM
Oh, short answer to your question? No.

Well, on the other hand, if you remove the dash camera and witnesses you end up with one dead badguy with a gun in his hand and one good guy who says he didnt have a choice, good shoot.

SalukiFan
October 1, 2005, 06:14 PM
I agree with MDG1976. Classic (attempted) suicide by cop. If you weren't able to see the video, the newscaster mentions that the man who was shot was threatening suicide earlier.

Rockstar
October 1, 2005, 06:40 PM
Why is it, in so many cases like this, we never hear what the father had to say? It's alway the mother or grandmother. (That was a rhetorical question! ;) )

Werewolf
October 1, 2005, 06:49 PM
Why, when stopped, did he get out the car with the gun? He had no other reason to do so other than to do harm to somebody and that somebody was apparently only police officers. IMO the poster is analyzing the situation based on ascribing rational action to a person who was pretty obviously whacked out. Sorry but that dog just don't hunt.

Irrational people do irrational things. Getting out of that car with a gun in the presence of law enforcement in the absence of god like training in firearms use is by all standards irrational.

AND that is another reason I am conflicted by this shooting. The officer had to have known he was confronting a whacked out individual. Predicting a nut job's next move is difficult at best. As other's have pointed out that furtive movement probably was enough to justify the officer's action. On the other hand the officer - in a perfect world - is rational and has the training and reflexes to analyze the situation and decide not to shoot or to shoot as circumstances dictate.

Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. The officer was there, we weren't. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case but just barely.

However, I remain concerned that Officer Safety has become too much an overriding factor to assure that the police will use lethal force only when it is appropriate.

The key question another poster asked was if the shooter had been a citizen would this have been a good shoot. IMO yes it would be. Which indicates to me that the standards for using lethal force for law enforcement should be stricter - paradoxicly - than those for citizens.

Citizens just don't have the training or experience to deal with life and death situations. They do have the same level of right to life that it seems is assigned to LEO's these days (my perception - right or wrong - is that current standards actually assign a higer value to a LEO's life than that assigned to a citizen). That said IMO citizens should have a looser set of standards for using lethal force than LEO's.

LSCurrier
October 1, 2005, 06:50 PM
Another instance of a bad guy not listening to the orders of cops and bad things happening as a result.

Perhaps he should have dropped the gun and raised his hands above his head. What do you think?

Luke

artherd
October 1, 2005, 07:05 PM
Why is it, in so many cases like this, we never hear what the father had to say? It's alway the mother or grandmother. (That was a rhetorical question!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that daddy is either:

A) Up and Done Left
B) In Jail
D) Both A & B.
C) Dead because he had cops yelling at him for 8+ seconds and didn't drop a gun either.

Werewolf
October 1, 2005, 07:16 PM
^^^^ :D Artherd you better break out your SHTF kit and be ready. The PC police are on their way to your home, loaded for bear and ready to take your insensitive posterior out of the sheeple gene pool. :evil:

MountainPeak
October 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
The guy had ample warning! PERIOD, nuff said!!

Phyphor
October 1, 2005, 07:28 PM
Ok, so he's cruising around Texas, he's armed, and he gets stopped by the cops.... just WHAT is the reason for exiting your vehicle with your weapon in your hand, when confronted by police? And what could he possibly expect, a "sir, please comply with our desires, or we may have to get stern?"

From the video shown here, the score is: Darwin 1, Idiot 0.

XLMiguel
October 1, 2005, 08:47 PM
If the subject doesn't have sense enough to come out of this car empty-handed when stopped by the local constabulary, he obviously just don't get it. It's not like he don't know the drill?

If he's a suicidal whack-job that is forcing the situation, then it is indeed 'suicide by cop', he isn't 'entitled' to any particular consideration. My sympathies to the officer and the family.

Sorta looks like Natural Selection, one way or the other

Shootcraps
October 1, 2005, 09:07 PM
Maybe he couldn't speak English and didn't understand their commands?

I've heard the response to that is, "Dude, you're just like a cue ball. The harder I hit you, the more English I'll get." :evil:

The way he stood there, makes it look like an officer-assisted suicide.

Gordy Wesen
October 1, 2005, 09:22 PM
the Officer screwed up a head shot.

Zundfolge
October 1, 2005, 09:37 PM
I have precisely one question:
Would if have been a "good shoot" for a civilian?

Well by "civilian" I know you really mean "Non LEO", but around here if I (as a non LEO) where in that same situation then yes I believe it would be called a "good shoot".

He had a weapon in his hand, he was refusing to drop it when ordered by someone else with a gun (doesn't matter that they are a cop or not) so I would interpret those as Opportunity, Ability and Manifest intent ... assuming I had no place to run I'd have Preclusion (and if I didn't have Preclusion I wouldn't be yelling at him to drop his weapon, I'd be exercising my other options...also I'm not sure its required in Colorado ... much like Florida).

That said, us "civilians" wouldn't be in the situation as it was a traffic stop.


Maybe he couldn't speak English and didn't understand their commands?
Name for me one spanish speaking country where the police would welcome an armed man with open arms?

I don't care if he doesn't speak English, he knows what cops are and he knows when any cop anywhere in the world is yelling at you and pointing his gun at you, you put your gun down. If he doesn't know this ... well then the gene pool has just been strengthened.

skidmark
October 1, 2005, 09:40 PM
Quote:
This flies in the face of all reason. As far as I could tell, the weapon was never raised, and therefore there was no iminent threat posed.


So let me get this straight. Some obviously unbalanced fellow is holding a weapon and ignores every instruction you give him despite the fact that you are covering him with a weapon, he walks towards you, and you wait for him to put the muzzle to your temple before you react? Maybe that works for you, but i wouldnt put anyone else in such an absurd position.

This argument will not fly, hunt, dance, or otherwise survive. Just look at the distance involved and compute the number of steps it would take for him to reach the nearest cop's side to put the muzzle to [your] temple.

Based on the audio portion, there were at least two cops present. From what I could determine, at least one was using the cruiser with the dashcam as cover. Shooter has gun in right hand and movement is with right hand to inside suitcoat/sports jacket near pants waistband. Furtive? Yes. Threatening? I don't think so, given the givens here. If you watch the video, the gun hand is quartered AWAY from the cruiser's dashcam (and straight into the side of his own car) when this movement is made.

There is not enough information to say that the cops did or did not know he had threatened suicide. There seems to be an indication that he was covered by more than one cop, and that at least that cop was behind cover. I just do not see the threat as being iminent.

And, yes, cops do have to answer to a higher level of resp[onsibility, because they are allowed to draw and aim before the actual iminent threat. I would never want to take that away fronm the cops, because it is all that will save their lives if the threat becomes iminent - that split-second advantage of not having to draw & aim and then fire. But as they are given the advantage, they must be held accountable for when they use it.

"I feared for my life" is not a free pass. If I was a cop I guess I'd fear for my life every second. But that does not say I can shoot without iminent threat.

stay safe.

skidmark

JohnKSa
October 1, 2005, 09:48 PM
He had a lot of choices. He made every one of them incorrectly.

The last two (below) should have gotten him killed by all rights--he's lucky in my book.

He chose to get out of the car with a pistol in his hand.

He chose to hold on to it when ordered to drop it.

And the argument that he was irrational doesn't make his case any better--an irrational man with a gun in his hand is FAR more dangerous than one who is rational.

Remember, we're not talking about a guy going about his business who just happened to be armed. It's not like the police stopped him for speeding and by chance he was armed at the time and they shot him for it.

He was stopped by the police in the aftermath of some sort of disturbance in which he had been acting irrationally and the police were called. He chose to arm himself before exiting his vehicle and chose not to disarm when told to disarm. Getting out of your car with a gun in hand is VERY different from simply having a gun ON you during a traffic stop.

Taurus 66
October 1, 2005, 09:57 PM
I cannot get the video. Does anybody have another link?

M-Rex
October 1, 2005, 10:02 PM
What the hell is this?

"They didn't give him a chance to do nuthin."

Did the mother or did the mother not just get done watching the video of her gangbanger son NOT complying with lawful orders from a peace officer?

"Why didn't they get somebody to go over there and talk to him?"

Say what? A gangbanger with a gun, and there's supposed to be genteel dialog?

I am starting to believe that there is some merit to having people apply for a license to procreate.

No_Brakes23
October 1, 2005, 10:05 PM
i'm curious, is it normal for car camera tapes to be made public? I certainly hope so.

the Officer screwed up a head shot I agree, but how do you screw up a headshot under 50 yards with an AR? Well actually the jaw would still be in the V-ring, so I guess it isn't that bad. Maybe with adrenalin and all that.

I guess they could have shown more restraint, and maybe hit him with the bean-bag gun, but the 8 seconds of non-compliance removes any sympathy I might have had for him.

I don't care what language you speak, if cops are yelling at you and you are holding a gun, I bet you know what they want.

Actually, just getting out of the car with the firearm in hand pretty much writes off your right to life, so I say the cops did okay, (As if my opinion mattered.)

Hoploholic
October 1, 2005, 10:06 PM
The suspect had his back to the officers. He would have had to bring the weapon to bear and then turn around to fire a shot. Force continuum would not indicate a shooting scenerio at the point the shot was made. Something was wrong with the guy and in all probability the officer would have had a reason to shot him eventually. When the shot was made, the necessary requirements were not there. Being an LEO is a dangerous job and requires great never and intelligence. If you make a bad call, you should have to answer for it. I think the officer made a bad call and shot before he had to.

I was amazed when the officer left the carbine on the hood of the patrol car. That should be an actionable offense right there. You never leave a weapon without securing it.

spocahp anar
October 1, 2005, 10:09 PM
Suicide by cop; as said in an earlier post he made reference to killing himself.

one45auto
October 1, 2005, 10:19 PM
Where was that tazer gun they love using on unarmed women? :confused:

Teufelhunden
October 1, 2005, 11:03 PM
Moral of my story is, if you're a law abiding armed citizen and the police tell you to drop the gun, then drop the gun!

+1.

Being Constitutionally correct or morally right will not reverse the fact that you're ventilated and dead. When I was working as a PI, I got made on a case and they called the cops. When I heard a knock on the window and stuck my head out from the back of the van, I found myself staring down the barrel of a Glock being held by an obviously nervous small-town policeman with Colonel's eagles on his collar. He demanded that I place my hands on the dash, which I did. he then demanded that I open the door (they were locked), which I also did slowly and smoothly. He instructed me to get out of the van, to which in reply I queried what he wanted me to do with my hands. I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was trying NOT to make the guy with the gun more nervous than he already was. He ended up getting me halfway into handcuffs before he asked me if I was a PI. I replied in the affirmative, and he asked me for ID. I told him it could be found in my wallet, but kept my free hand on the van. Once it was determined that I was not a criminal, he uncuffed me and apologized profusely. I told him that he and I were both fine, so 'no harm, no foul'.

The point of this story is that a law-abiding citizen has nothing to lose by obeying legal commands to drop a weapon and then sorting out the mess later. We have a similar response when we break up an inmate fight in our jail or raid a house: everyone involved, no matter how apparent their innocence, gets momentarily restrained. Once the situation is under control and we can clear up who the bad guys are, those not involved or victimized are uncuffed. This is safer than having judgemental mistakes being made by cops coming into the situation and people who do not understand what it's like to run into a confusing adrenaline-inducing situation being shot or otherwise hurt.

My pride was hurt when i got pulled out of my van, but my a$$ was whole, so I considered it a win.

-Teuf

Shootcraps
October 1, 2005, 11:09 PM
I agree, but how do you screw up a headshot under 50 yards with an AR?


Perhaps he received his training at the Lon Horiuchi Sniper School. :what:

Preacherman
October 1, 2005, 11:23 PM
Actually, shooting an AR, it's easy to confuse line-of-sight with line-of-bore - the latter is a few inches below the former, depending on the sights involved. It's possible the shooter was aiming for the cranium, and forgot that the bore line would be lower than this - he should have allowed for it.

Tom Servo
October 2, 2005, 12:30 AM
Maybe he couldn't speak English and didn't understand their commands?
Not an excuse. It doesn't matter where you are or whether or not you understand the language: when uniformed men point guns at you, empty your hands and get on the ground.

From what I've heard of Mexican law-enforcement, I'm sure he learned this lesson well back home.

c_yeager
October 2, 2005, 01:48 AM
The suspect had his back to the officers. He would have had to bring the weapon to bear and then turn around to fire a shot. Force continuum would not indicate a shooting scenerio at the point the shot was made.

We must have been watching a different film. Consider that you saw the pistol in the suspect's hand. The film was shot directly from the POV of the responding officers. How did you see that pistol if the suspect had his back to the camera?

nyresq
October 2, 2005, 02:24 AM
as posted by SKIDMARK- There is not enough information to say that the cops did or did not know he had threatened suicide. There seems to be an indication that he was covered by more than one cop, and that at least that cop was behind cover. I just do not see the threat as being iminent.

so the police need to wait to fire until fired upon??? how long do you think it would take someone to raise a gun thats already in their hand and squeeze off a shot, not aimed, just raise and squeeze. even with an aimed in rifle on them they WILL get the shot off before a cop can drop them. Action is always faster then Re-action.

you say the cops were behind cover and there was more then one covering him? SO WHAT??? Do you want to be the sacrificial officer who "takes one for the team" when the stupid punk manages to get a lucky shot off before he gets dropped?? yea, I didn't think so...

I have a broken watch in my desk... even broken its right twice a day.

If you can see the danger, then the danger can see you and all it takes is one round to send a priest to some poor officers door to tell his wife her husband is dead because they decide to wait untill the suspect "made his move" before they shot him.

the moral of the story is, a cop points a gun at you and tells you to drop the gun.... do it or get shot... simple.

look at the link below for another shooting where an GA officer by the name of Dinkheller pulls over a mutant who disobeys all orders and gets a rifle from his truck, the officer continues to shout at him for an actual 30 seconds after recognizing he has a gun, and the officer gets into a shootout and lost... God bless his family.

http://www.filecabi.net/v/file/officervsguy/wmv

This is why you don't shout at an armed suspect, you give a command, he disobeys, he gets shot. period :banghead:

I don't care if he is unstable, suicidal, or just stupid. I'm going home at the end of my shift. If I go home with less rounds then I came to work with, that's not something my family will worry about.

GregGry
October 2, 2005, 02:59 AM
Holy crap nyresq!!!! That video sent chills down my spine!. As much as I wouldn't want to shoot someone, the moment that guy pulled that gun out, I would have shot. When he went back to the truck, and reached behind the seat I would have probably shot as well.

skidmark
October 2, 2005, 07:02 AM
so the police need to wait to fire until fired upon??? how long do you think it would take someone to raise a gun thats already in their hand and squeeze off a shot, not aimed, just raise and squeeze. even with an aimed in rifle on them they WILL get the shot off before a cop can drop them. Action is always faster then Re-action.

you say the cops were behind cover and there was more then one covering him? SO WHAT??? Do you want to be the sacrificial officer who "takes one for the team" when the stupid punk manages to get a lucky shot off before he gets dropped?? yea, I didn't think so...

Dear NYRESQ:

I see the danger - I guess the best way to describe it is "if my gun is out I need to shoot." This may apply to the CCW "citizen" because we are legally constrained from pulling our weapons in case there is danger. Cops, on the other hand, are allowed and encouraged to pull first and decide later if there is a need to shoot. The possible/probable application of deadly force is itself a part of the force continuum used to encourage compliance with police instructions.

By the time I, as private CCW "citizen," decide to draw my weapon, I have already decided that it is going to go BOOM until the threat is stopped. Cops should not be making the same decision in every case - and IMNSHO this was a case that did not warrant immediate response.

The major differences between this shhoting incident and the Dinkheller incident - which you brought into the discussion - are that 1) Dinkheller was not behind cover, 2) the perp in the Dinkheller case raised the weapon & clearly intended to shoot, and 3) there is a lot of suggestion that Dinkheller's earlier reprimand influenced his decision-making that day. None of those are even siggested as being present in this situation.

We all agree that the most responsible, reasonable, rationale thing to do when confronted by a cop with a weapon aimed at you is to do exactly as the cop instructs you. Problem is this guy is described as being not responsible (prior criminal behavior), and not reasonable or rationale (suicidal thoughts, ignoring cops with weapons pointed at him, etc.)

Sure he is, therefore, an unknown and unpredictable danger. But he was not, at the moment the shot was fired, an iminent threat. With the cops already aiming at him from behind cover, I would have thought the hand movement might have been something to react to - except that it put the muzzle of the gun in his hand away from the cops & towards the car.

Let me end by stating that I do not like criminals. I do not think they should get anything but a first chance to do right instead of wrong. But I also do not like the idea that cops should be allowed/permitted/condoned to shoot because they "feared" they life was threatened. That ought to be reserved for situations when they can clearly articulate how and why there life was in fact threatened. That's the standard I'm going to be held to. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for the cops. I still do not see the actual iminent threat from this BG. I do see it from an attitude that encourages/supports cops to shoot just because some jerk has not complied with verbal instruction for 8 seconds, or 10 seconds, or whatever length of time has passed.

stay safe.

skidmark

Kjervin
October 2, 2005, 07:04 AM
His mom asked why they didn't send someone over to talk to him. I guess because they didn't want to get shot, so they sent "A. R. Lead" (a pretty hash negotiator) over to politely ask him to drop the gun and have a seat by the car, and from the looks of things, he complied. I think the shootee is pretty lucky to still be alive and only facing a misdameanor! His mom should count her blessings and shut up. It's her child she should be angry with. Her son thought he was in control of the situation and could ignore the officers, but he couldn't ignore the persuasiveness of A.R. Lead! :evil:

KJ

04SilverSCFX4
October 2, 2005, 12:35 PM
Anyone here ever see the Chris Rock episode..."How not to get your ass kicked by the police?" I think this would make a good re-make of "How not to get your as SHOT by the police."

On a serious note though, armed suicidal suspect with a gun refusing verbal commands. I really doubt that any one of the critics here would have the testicular fortitude to approach this individual to apply a taser or any other compliance techniques. Maybe I'm wrong, if you do, then you've got my apology and the Darwin Award 2005.

Also, anyone else notice that the only picture the family could provide of their model-citizen son, he appeared to be throwing his "set"....Maybe this will teach the young punk that the gangsta-life should be left in the movies or at the rap studios.

Reminds me of my favarite movie line from Naked Gun 33 1/3,.."No ma'am, shooting a gang-member in this state is only a $50.00 fine, just send it in when you renew your registration.."

Sir Aardvark
October 2, 2005, 02:09 PM
Welcome to today's America.

Our society is such that just holding a firearm in the presence of a police officer is grounds for the police to use deadly force.

Not that the guy wasn't an idiot to not listen to the police.

one45auto
October 2, 2005, 03:27 PM
Our society is such that just holding a firearm in the presence of a police officer is grounds for the police to use deadly force.

Or, down in New Orleans, tackled - particularly if you're an old woman trying to defend your property. Refusing to sleep on some government provided cot in a gymnasium somewhere only compounds your problem. :neener:

Anything less than blind obedience and complete dependency will not be tolerated. After all, self-reliance is for extremists. :rolleyes:

Bobo
October 2, 2005, 03:56 PM
Anyone who doesn't immediately comply with an officer's orders deserves the consequences.

DevLcL
October 2, 2005, 04:27 PM
This is just my unexperienced 2 cents. When you become a police officer you realise the risks involved. For you folks to say they "didnt wanna take the chance and let him have the first shot..." well...thats part of being a cop in my book. BEING A POLICE OFFICER MEANS TAKING SHOTS FOR THE COMMUNITY. Since when did it become a fact that in the legal world a police officers life is more important then any average citizen. What gives them the right to shoot a legally armed citzen just because the weapon is in hand. Why didnt the suspect have the right to shoot the cops? They surely had weapons in hand. I realise LEO's go through training in firearms and lots firearms owners have little to no training at all. But does that really give them the right to use deadly force just because their life is in danger? This is OURAGEOUS... YOUR THE POLICE... IF YOU GET SHOT I DONT SHED ONE TEAR FOR YOU. The only reason an armed suspect should EVER be shot is if he's clearly aiming the gun in an inocennt bystandard(s) dircetion (not law enforcement) or AFTER he has shot an officer.

When a police officer dies they have a parade through downtown to honor this great persons life. When a suspect is shot by the police they drag him to an ambulance (if hes lucky) then they tell the family "tough luck"

If any law enforcemnt officers are reading this please dont take it as a person attack but rather use this constructive critisizm to become a better officer.

Once again let me repeat myself...

BEING A POLICE OFFICER MEANS TAKING SHOTS FOR THE COMMUNITY

YOUR THE POLICE... IF YOU GET SHOT I DONT SHED ONE TEAR FOR YOU

Polices officer know full well what their getting into when they become officers.. They want the badge and the side arm. They want to tell people what to do and how to do it. They abuse the law more then any other group of people in the world. There are more police related deaths every day then any other type of group. the side of the car says their job is to "protect and serve"... When was the last time a gestapo protected or served you? They sure did protect that guy in the video. Dont let me forget how they served Rodney King. Last year my best friend was killed in a car accident. Two months later I was accused of filming ungerage sex. The reason I was accused was because the police knew I threw parties and they know I film things. So after forcing their way into my house, searching everything I owned (without a warrant) and having me convinced I did something wrong, they got a call saying they found out who really did it and it had nothing to do with me. Meanwhile the detective point to the picture of my deceased bud and says did you him?.... The guy was trying to be nice and sympathetic after he illegally broke into my house. I wanted to punch him right in the nose. The only reason I didnt is because I would have been beaten like I was black.

To this day I've not recieved a single apology from any officer what-so-ever.
They scared me into letting them in without a warrant and they really messed up.

LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
(edited-out spam)

(I have not watched the video in question. All my remarks are based on similar and non-similar events that likely happen every day all over the country. Which have been happening since the begining of law enforcement)

OK NOW I HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO....THE OFFICERS FELT IN DANGER!!?!?!?!?!?!? THE OFFICER WAS 50 YARDS AWAY WITH M16...***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!

I know I make a few enemies and probably get kicked out of this forum... but itis after all my first amendment right....

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND ABUSIVE POLICE.

For a Police officer to abuse his power is like a day-care center that molests its children.

The worst part about this whole situation is this:
Police have brainwashed their citizens into believing what they say and do is always right. In this most people would not be willing to pick up arms against the corrupt law enforcemnt of America, when the truth is, regular citizens and their arms out number the police AT LEAST 5 to 1. Theres no way to ever change the way cops act.

The best we can do is blindly surrender our lives to their mere whims and fears in an effort to avoid undue prosecution or physical harm. Theres no stopping the power. They will do as they like and we (American Citizens) can only be pawns. Who are these all-mighty creatures that have such a strangle-hold on SO MANY people. How have they come to power. How does god let such things happen. How did this world get so corrupt?

These are all question I think we've all asked at one point or another, in one form or another. The answer is this. Life is life. You cannot change fate.
Fate says that police will be corrupt. There is nothing to be done about it. We are sheep. You can disagree with me if you like but its true. Theres nothing anyone can do to change unjust situations in this world. Even if you do change it there is a worse situation around every corner.

After all... we are only human.

-Dev

M-Rex
October 2, 2005, 05:20 PM
This is just my unexperienced 2 cents. When you become a police officer you realise the risks involved. For you folks to say they "didnt wanna take the chance and let him have the first shot..." well...thats part of being a cop in my book. BEING A POLICE OFFICER MEANS TAKING SHOTS FOR THE COMMUNITY. Since when did it become a fact that in the legal world a police officers life is more important then any average citizen. What gives them the right to shoot a legally armed citzen just because the weapon is in hand. Why didnt the suspect have the right to shoot the cops? They surely had weapons in hand. I realise LEO's go through training in firearms and lots firearms owners have little to no training at all. But does that really give them the right to use deadly force just because their life is in danger? This is OURAGEOUS... YOUR THE POLICE... IF YOU GET SHOT I DONT SHED ONE TEAR FOR YOU. The only reason an armed suspect should EVER be shot is if he's clearly aiming the gun in an inocennt bystandard(s) dircetion (not law enforcement) or AFTER he has shot an officer.

When a police officer dies they have a parade through downtown to honor this great persons life. When a suspect is shot by the police they drag him to an ambulance (if hes lucky) then they tell the family "tough luck"

If any law enforcemnt officers are reading this please dont take it as a person attack but rather use this constructive critisizm to become a better officer.

Once again let me repeat myself...

BEING A POLICE OFFICER MEANS TAKING SHOTS FOR THE COMMUNITY

YOUR THE POLICE... IF YOU GET SHOT I DONT SHED ONE TEAR FOR YOU

Polices officer know full well what their getting into when they become officers.. They want the badge and the side arm. They want to tell people what to do and how to do it. They abuse the law more then any other group of people in the world. There are more police related deaths every day then any other type of group. the side of the car says their job is to "protect and serve"... When was the last time a gestapo protected or served you? They sure did protect that guy in the video. Dont let me forget how they served Rodney King. Last year my best friend was killed in a car accident. Two months later I was accused of filming ungerage sex. The reason I was accused was because the police knew I threw parties and they know I film things. So after forcing their way into my house, searching everything I owned (without a warrant) and having me convinced I did something wrong, they got a call saying they found out who really did it and it had nothing to do with me. Meanwhile the detective point to the picture of my deceased bud and says did you him?.... The guy was trying to be nice and sympathetic after he illegally broke into my house. I wanted to punch him right in the nose. The only reason I didnt is because I would have been beaten like I was black.

To this day I've not recieved a single apology from any officer what-so-ever.
They scared me into letting them in without a warrant and they really messed up.

LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE
LAW ENFORCMENT IS A JOKE

(I have not watched the video in question. All my remarks are based on similar and non-similar events that likely happen every day all over the country. Which have been happening since the begining of law enforcement)

OK NOW I HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO....THE OFFICERS FELT IN DANGER!!?!?!?!?!?!? THE OFFICER WAS 50 YARDS AWAY WITH M16...***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??!

I know I make a few enemies and probably get kicked out of this forum... but itis after all my first amendment right....

I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND ABUSIVE POLICE.

For a Police officer to abuse his power is like a day-care center that molests its children.

The worst part about this whole situation is this:
Police have brainwashed their citizens into believing what they say and do is always right. In this most people would not be willing to pick up arms against the corrupt law enforcemnt of America, when the truth is, regular citizens and their arms out number the police AT LEAST 5 to 1. Theres no way to ever change the way cops act.

The best we can do is blindly surrender our lives to their mere whims and fears in an effort to avoid undue prosecution or physical harm. Theres no stopping the power. They will do as they like and we (American Citizens) can only be pawns. Who are these all-mighty creatures that have such a strangle-hold on SO MANY people. How have they come to power. How does god let such things happen. How did this world get so corrupt?

These are all question I think we've all asked at one point or another, in one form or another. The answer is this. Life is life. You cannot change fate.
Fate says that police will be corrupt. There is nothing to be done about it. We are sheep. You can disagree with me if you like but its true. Theres nothing anyone can do to change unjust situations in this world. Even if you do change it there is a worse situation around every corner.

After all... we are only human.

-Dev

Your obvious troll was reported to the mods. By the way, the first amendment doesn't give you the right to be heard.

DevLcL
October 2, 2005, 05:33 PM
M-Rex
Your obvious troll was reported to the mods.

...as was expected.

Think of me what you will but remember I'm only saying what I've experienced and what others have reported to me. Im not alone in my thoughts. I have no desire to hurt or discredit anyone personally. It is my opinion that the system is highly corrupt. A system in which I honestly wish I could trust.

-Dev

GregGry
October 2, 2005, 05:43 PM
DevLcL That was the stupidest post I have read in my life. Police are paid to protect society, and take care of the garbage people don't want anything to do with. That kid was possibly a felon, even if that wasn't the case he had a criminal record. That makes him a low life in society. He has not tried to be part of society, and be a decent human, why should he have the rights of a law abiding citizen?

Also, how many cops have you actually been in contact with? I am willing to bet you have based your entire opinion on what you have heard on the news, the paper, and what friends tell you. Thats all fine and dandy, but if thats the case, you don't have a clue as to anything your voicing your opinion on.

In a totaly free society police shouldn't exist, its not really a totaly free society then. The problem is, remove the police, and you will have chaos. You may not think the police do anything, but your mistaken. Sure they might not find the stuff that was stolen from your house, but they do help the community a lot. They are part of society, and if you hate them, you a bit foolish. I am willing to bet that hate will only last until the point that you need them.

M-Rex
October 2, 2005, 05:44 PM
Think of me what you will but remember I'm only saying what I've experienced and what others have reported to me. Im not alone in my thoughts. I have no desire to hurt or discredit anyone personally. It is my opinion that the system is highly corrupt. A system in which I honestly wish I could trust.

You are a teenager. What life experience could you possibly have?

odysseus
October 2, 2005, 05:45 PM
Right or wrong, being too emotional doesn't make one's point stronger. Neither do personal snipes reacting to it.

No_Brakes23
October 2, 2005, 05:45 PM
Spamming "LAW ENFORCEMENT IS A JOKE" is your experience?

Apparently filming kiddie porn makes you keyboard-challenged.

GregGry
October 2, 2005, 05:50 PM
It is my opinion that the system is highly corrupt. A system in which I honestly wish I could trust Corruption does exist, but its blown way out of porportion by the media. The police department here had 7 officers that were involved in a beating of another officer. They were found guilty and prosecuted if I remember right. So what, 7 bad officers on the department, next thing you know people are saying the entire department is corrupt. The problem is that the department is 2,200 officers, and a total of 7 bad officers is insignificant to the size of the department. Have you ever though about things like that?

When I worked at numerous retail chain stores, the corruption level was a lot higher. At one store I worked at, I would say atleast 70% of the workers I worked with over a period of 3 years, stole, cheated payroll, tampered with documents, and many other things. How come we don't hear about cases like that, in the media? Because it doesn't sell news papers. Who wants to hear about a 70% corruption rate in a chain store, when you can hear of a less then 1% corruption rate in a police department?

odysseus
October 2, 2005, 05:55 PM
First off let me state I think this shoot was clean. However it was pretty close to the line timing wise, it was clean and the guy should count his blessings he got to live through it.

Who wants to hear about a 70% corruption rate in a chain store, when you can hear of a less then 1% corruption rate in a police department?

Now to this quote. I see what you are saying; however the comparison is off. LE has power of law and enforcement of arms. They are public servants with guns. So corruption in their ranks is serious, serious business.

DevLcL
October 2, 2005, 05:58 PM
No_Brakes23, Your right. I probably only needed to type it once.

GregGry, Maybe "highly" is too strong a word. I'm not sure if this makes any difference but the mother of my deceased friend is a police officer. We talk often. I highly respect her.

-Dev

Bigreno
October 2, 2005, 05:59 PM
@ DevLcL..

First let me say that I work in law enforcement.

Maybe someone can help me understand why all the people I see with this type of attitude toward the police fall into the same general category. I have never run into a law abiding productive citizen with these kinds of views. If there are any out there please stand an be heard. They always seem to be the bottom feeders and cancers on society. Usually someone who's Meth Lab was raided and the police knocked over his favorite water bong and broke it or the beligerant alcoholic who's been in and out of jail more times than can be counted.

Maybe someday I'll run into a preacher or school teacher who thinks I should take a bullet because I work to protect people from said bottom feeders...but I highly doubt it.

Reno.

Ric
October 2, 2005, 05:59 PM
Let's see:
I'm a felon
I've just ran from police
they finally get me stopped (there were a lot of patrol cars must have been a felony stop)
should I get out of the car with my gun in my hand?? :scrutiny:

it's not rocket science :fire:

GregGry
October 2, 2005, 06:04 PM
Now to this quote. I see what you are saying; however the comparison is off. LE has power of law and enforcement of arms. They are public servants with guns. So corruption in their ranks is serious, serious business I agree it is a serious business, all I am saying is that the corruption is not as high as people like to think it is.

M-Rex
October 2, 2005, 06:10 PM
+1 GregGry

It's not even remotely half as close as it is portrayed in the media.

By the way, in your example, the corrupt to honest percentage was 0.0032%.

That is pretty darn near statistically insignificant. I wonder if the private sector is that 'clean'.

Werewolf
October 2, 2005, 07:38 PM
Anyone who doesn't immediately comply with an officer's orders deserves the consequences. :banghead:
Well of course you do - what with the police being GOD-KINGS and all - especially if they're pointing a gun at ya.

That said:
On a philosophical level the quote above is pure unmitigated CRAP and it is disturbing that anyone born and raised in the United States of America could even have such a thought let alone have the huzpah to say it out loud in a place where 20 thousand or more can see it.

On the other hand as a practical matter it pretty much is true these days in the US. After all - as Chairman Mao so rightly observed - power emanates from the barrel of a gun. Our leaders would never say it but they definitely know it.

M-Rex
October 2, 2005, 08:27 PM
Criminey...you know damn well what he meant. :rolleyes:

Why does everything have to culminate into cop bashing/libertarian dogma?

Jeeper
October 2, 2005, 09:27 PM
but itis after all my first amendment right....


You need to read the bill of rights. The 1st protects against GOVERNMENT denial of free speech. This is a private forum and thus it does not apply.

Warbow
October 2, 2005, 09:50 PM
Looks like a clean shoot to me. He's either very stupid or, like others suggested, wanted to die.

OK NOW I HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO....THE OFFICERS FELT IN DANGER!!?!?!?!?!?!? THE OFFICER WAS 50 YARDS AWAY WITH M16...***!!!!!!

First, that wasn't 50 yards -- more like 20-25. Second, you do know that handgun rounds can travel well past 50 yards, right?

JohnKSa
October 2, 2005, 09:54 PM
Our society is such that just holding a firearm in the presence of a police officer is grounds for the police to use deadly force.BS. There's a TREMENDOUS difference between being armed as a matter of course, and arming yourself as a direct response to being pulled over by the cops.

I've held firearms in the presence of police officers many times and was never so much as threatened by one nor disarmed. The context is all-important.

nyresq
October 3, 2005, 12:10 AM
DevLcL

I'm gonna take a guess and say your age is.... what? 18? 17?

you have the prize for the most flame producing troll humping post I have ever seen on these forums. You must be joking. I can't imagine that you honestly believe the crap that you printed. 1st amendment? do you have any idea without doing a google search what the bill of rights actually is? I very much doubt you have ever even read it, much less understand what it states. The first amendment is not all encompasing of any speech or statements, and if you think it is, then you need to go to class a little more often and throw a few less "parties"... Dude...

Police are paid to take a bullet for the community? You need to wake up and stop smoking the stuff in the little baggies. Or at least take it out of the plastic bag before you light it. You throw parties and "film stuff"???

Dear god, someone please give this kid a quarter so he can buy a clue.

nyresq
October 3, 2005, 12:37 AM
Skid,

1) Dinkheller was not behind cover, 2) the perp in the Dinkheller case raised the weapon & clearly intended to shoot

I saw this video in a use of force training class at FLETC a few years ago, the follow up investigation showed:
1) Actually he dropped back behind his cruiser prior to any shots being fired.
2) There is a significant period of time (aproxx 15-20 seconds) the suspect has the rifle down at his waist, not shouldered or even pointing in Dinkheller's direction.


Problem is this guy is described as being not responsible (prior criminal behavior), and not reasonable or rationale (suicidal thoughts, ignoring cops with weapons pointed at him, etc.)


All the more reason not to give him the chance to score a lucky shot before being dropped.




On a side note, I went to the range today with another LEO friend and did a few experiments with a pact timer, a hand gun and an AR-15 (colt LE6920).

We both tried to out shoot each other as the bad guy, in every case the bad guy won. The experiment was very simple:
Stand side by side on the range and crank one target out to 25 yards. The "BG" stood with the pistol at his side and the "Officer" got a kneeling braced position (used the back of a chair for a brace/ simulated car door). The Officer aimed in with the rifle and the BG stood with his arms at his sides. With out warning or notification the BG raises the pistol and fires a round, unaimed and single handed at the target. The officer can have his finger on the trigger, but can't take up any slack (to avoid a potential ND). The officer upon seeing the suspect move has to fire the rifle at the target.

We both played both parts 15 times each. The BG beat the officer every time unless the officer got jumpy and shot before the BG moved. Out of 30 rounds fired, the BG scored hits on the upper half of the torso 3 times and the lower half another 2. The lower shots may have been stopped by a car door, but if using a decent load in a good size caliber, normally it will penetrate a car door.

Try it yourself next time you go shooting with a friend. You'll see, action is always faster then re-action.

Taurus 66
October 3, 2005, 12:39 AM
REALLY! A police shooting caught on tape? :rolleyes:

fistful
October 3, 2005, 12:47 AM
And no one has yet criticized the media for capitalizing on a mother's grief and ignorance as if her crying were actual news?

GUY GETS SHOT; MOTHER UPSET

Not much of a headline, is it?

joab
October 3, 2005, 01:45 AM
Back to an old question
I have precisely one question:
Would if have been a "good shoot" for a civilian?No a "civilian" would not have had the right or reason to stop and detain the guy.
If a non LEO had stopped the guy and he came out with a gun we would be critiquing his CQB tactics and calling for the head of the detainer.

The cops had lawful reason to stop and detain the guy, he had the responsibility to meet the cops in a responsible manner
ie: unarmed

fistful
October 3, 2005, 02:19 AM
Doesn't it appear that he puts both hands together just before he gets popped? Doesn't it look as though he is preparing to pull back the slide, probably to chamber a round? I would think the guy with the AR could at least have thought the same thing.

specoperator
October 3, 2005, 02:42 AM
This is all to familiar, the OLE "let's challenge the police" demneanor and attitude. I have been pulled over numerous times for traffic infractions, I have alway's done exactly what the officer has said to do, and then some. I have alway's flipped the dome light on, place my hands at 10 and 2 o'clock on the steering wheel, and left my weapon in plain sight. By the looks of this goons demeanor, he's challenging the officers "do something" as if he has the upper hand, but the jokes on him. He found out what it's like to ignore verbal commands when you have a weapon in your hand. Do I feel sorry for the family, sure, but not when thier son is a punk, and stupid enouph to get out of the car with a firearm, and ignoring the LEO's verbal commands.

jashobeam
October 3, 2005, 03:28 AM
Why has no one commented on the bullet placement? The man was shot in the jaw. The officer had a rifle and somehow managed to botch an easy shot. It wasn't like the perp was a real quick mover, hopping from foot to foot, bobbing and weaving, or ducking and jumping. For 8 seconds he basically remained stationary.

Was the officer shooting at the head? The chest?

If that had been the result of a shot fired from a handgun, I would understand. I thought the rifle had a scope, but after reviewing the video I really couldn't tell. Scope or not, bad shot!

What do you all think? Am I being too critical?

migoi
October 3, 2005, 03:38 AM
the officer that made the shot was in the process of moving into position, saw the dinkus bring his hands together onto the firearm, and took a shot he had all of a second to make. If those were the circumstances then I'd say it was a pretty good shot...or using the standard of it did what it needed to do (stop the guy from continuing to bring his gun to bear), then it was a pretty good shot.

Is there another article or video out there I am not aware of? A whole lot of posters are referring to the number of officers and the positions of these officers. Nothing I saw in the video posted at the beginning of the thread shows any of this information.

migoi

rustymaggot
October 3, 2005, 04:27 AM
however, heres the post im replying to...........

" That is one sloppy shot!
Why has no one commented on the bullet placement? The man was shot in the jaw. .......................What do you all think? Am I being too critical?"

answer; far too critical.
many years ago out at the local range i met our countys swap sniper. acording to him shot placement is upper lip as this is the most direct route to the lower brainstem.

if you ask me the shooter was only 3/4 to 1 inch off target, and, the wound didnt seem to be off to either side by much. that was a exelent shot made by the officer. consider a few points.... he is not swat, hes just a patrolman and is not expected to be as proficient with a rifle as a swat member. the round was a 223 not a 308. if 308 was used the suspect would be dead and this would be called expert shot placement. 223 can deflect off bone and thats why snipers dont use it. the officer was under pressure. i have had to shoot when my life depended on it and it isnt as easy as all that. granted when i had to shoot it was against a animal, not a human being and im grateful for that. i would assume having to kill someone is fairly tramatic for anyone, even a trained officer. think of the officers feelings at this moment. he was forced to shoot someone in the face. forced is a accutare term for what happened. the suspect forced the leo's hand and made him shoot. no question. you do not lead the police on a chase and then get out with a gun and expect to live. the fact that the officer made a one inch away from perfect shot under considerable pressure is commendable.


next topic, would this be a clean shoot if the shooter was a civilian? yes, if some parralells are made.

for a leo the street is his home. a armed suspect on the street is just like a armed suspect in someones house. evading the police is akin to breaking into a homeowners house. its the boundary that seperates the relm of ok to do and not ok to do. once these parralells are made then the situation is very similar. homeowner tells a suspect in the owners house to drop his weapon, leo tells a suspect on the street to drop his weapon. same thing in my book.

misANTHrope
October 3, 2005, 06:02 AM
Just a few notes:

I see a lot of people referring to this guy as having a criminal record. I don't know if they're getting some other sources or what, but there is no mention in that video of him having a record, period. Nothing about him running from the police, as someone mentioned. Nothing about him being a felon, as has been mentioned. Nothing about him being a "gangbanger," as several have asserted. That still shot might show him flashing a gang sign, or it might show him pointing to the poster on the wall behind him. I'll admit that I'm no "gangxpert" at all, though a bit of online research I did didn't show any hand sign like what he was doing.

If you think I'm trying to say he's innocent and pure as the driven snow, I'm not. He apparently committed some offense, since it was a "case pending against him" that prompted him to threaten suicide.

I'm kind of iffy on the shoot myself. On the one hand, it's pretty much a good rule of thumb that when the police have guns on you and are giving you orders, getting out of the car with a gun of your own is not a wise decision in any language. It seems to me that rather than being defiant or aggressive, he was despondant and maybe considering the final moments of his life. I think he was in a "suicide by cop" state of mind, and he almost succeeded.

The threat he provided is kind of questionable to me, but it's right on the fence. His last hand movement didn't look really aggressive to me, but I wasn't there with my heart pumping in my ears, either. Maybe in a few seconds, he would have decided to keep living. Maybe in a few seconds he would have decided to get himself shot. Maybe in a few seconds he would have decided to go out with a bang. I don't know, and his body language doesn't point one way or another to me.

I think a little more time might have been desirable, but I'm not going to call it a bad shoot. As for the mother wondering why "they didn't send someone over to talk to him?" Nonsense. Hey, let's approach an armed man who's pretty clearly in a clouded state of mind and probably not capable of sound judgment. She's being ridiculous, but I've noticed mothers tend to get that way when it comes to their children.

I call it a good shot, but let's call it a good shoot based on the available information, not assumptions of "gangbanger" and "felon."

irontorc
October 3, 2005, 10:26 AM
Re: Subject of the thread.

I was unable to download the video, however based on the cumulative descriptions of the event, IMHO it sounds like it was a good shoot. I'm currently in security consulting, but base my opinion on prior LEO experience.

3rdPig,

With all due respect to you, I believe the example you gave concerning your father is a completely different animal. I'm certain that I did things during my 20's and 30's as a LEO that I would do differently today, but I disagree with the approach LE took in your father's case.

Perhaps there are some details that you left out that would change my opinion; but if your father had theatened no other person, was on his property (drunk or not), the local police had no right to trespass (I'm assuming thay shot him in his garage), and demand he drop his gun.

At best the police had reasonable suspicion based upon what the neighbors may have stated (IMHO no probable cause).

Again, I do not disrespect your opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it , as well as, with the notion that the police always, and under any circumstances, have the right to demand that a ctizen disarm himself (i.e. private property - no warrants). Evidently the court didn't agree with your father or I.

Just out of curiosity, what state did this take place in?

irontorc

Camp David
October 3, 2005, 10:42 AM
Why has no one commented on the bullet placement? The man was shot in the jaw. The officer had a rifle and somehow managed to botch an easy shot.

The American public has gotten use to the idea of police not being able to hit the side of a barn with their weapons! A recent shootout by police (over 200 shots) revealed that despite such an expense of ammunition, officers were unable to hit the target (A Chevy Suburban)! Meanwhile in a natural disaster that is New Orleans, private mercenaries of Blackwater Inc. patrolled the streets openly wielding M-16s and other assault weapons with clips of ammunition running into the hundreds! Officers throughout the nation relying on Glock semi-automatics and trained to spray lead rather than making a single intelligent shot!

Is anyone teaching accuracy anymore?

I recall a few years ago two guys wearing body armor frustrated California law enforcement for hours! DID ANYONE EVEN THINK TO SHOOT THESE GUYS IN THE HEAD?

Most boy scouts taking a rifle accuracy badge are better equipped to shoot than an average police officer!

Sorry if I criticize, but I've lost faith in law enforcement when they can't shoot!

jashobeam
October 3, 2005, 02:20 PM
First, let me say that I believe the officer was justified in taking the shot.

Now I'd like to make a few more comments about the shot itself, then I'll let it go since the officer's competence with a rifle is not the subject of this thread.

I will agree that in all likelihood the officer was rushed in taking his shot and, obviously, he was quite nervous. I am willing to make every excuse for this officer, but my original assessment still seems every bit as true--that it was a sloppy shot.

A member posted the opinion that I am indeed being too critical, and perhaps I am. I would like to comment on a few of the points he brought up to defend the officer.

1) Since when are patrol officers instructed to attempt to shoot at the brainstem? Aren't they taught to shoot center mass? If a head shot is desirable, wouldn't it make sense to NOT aim for the narrowest portion of it (the brainstem at the base of the skull)?

2) Shooting at the lip so as to hit the brainstem might be true IF your target IS FACING YOU. This doesn't work when you are broadside to him and staring at his profile, in which case a lip shot will yield little more than bloody lips and busted chops.

3) Since I, too, believe the officer was perhaps rushed over his shot, why did he increase the level of difficulty of the shot by aiming for a small spot that, if missed, could do little more than disfigure a man's face?

4) His shot was only off by an inch? Not only will I assert that his shot was off by more than an inch, but I will speculate that if the officer had missed by an equal distance in the opposite direction of his intended point of aim (if he was in fact aiming at the brainstem) he would have entirely missed his target.

I am not looking to pick a fight with anyone here, as that is not the way of the High Road, but I do expect those who are competent with firearms to acknowledge a poor shot when they see one, and not, to the contrary, declare it to be something close to an excellent shot. Offer all the excuses you care to offer and I will probably agree with many of them, but please don't tell me this was anything but a poorly placed shot.

It was a tense, traumatic moment in which the officer was in fear for his life and had to take a shot before being entirely prepared to do so. The shot worked as intended by removing the threat. Nevertheless, it was a sloppy, less than ideal shot. That's all I'm going to say on this subject. Thank you all for tolerating my rant.

odysseus
October 3, 2005, 04:55 PM
If that had been the result of a shot fired from a handgun, I would understand. I thought the rifle had a scope, but after reviewing the video I really couldn't tell. Scope or not, bad shot!

What do you all think? Am I being too critical?

To simply answer: Yes, you are being way too critical.

Remember, in times of stress and with the dynamics of a conflict, most people are only half as good as their training. Seems he did alright.

joab
October 3, 2005, 05:06 PM
If that had been the result of a shot fired from a handgun, I would understand. I thought the rifle had a scope, but after reviewing the video I really couldn't tell. Scope or not, bad shot!

What do you all think? Am I being too critical?One shot stop.
Where is the botched shot?
The goal is to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. He stopped

Lonestar.45
October 3, 2005, 05:33 PM
Rules for when you're stopped by the po-po:

Rule #1: When stopped by police with gun, don't exit the car with it in your hand, and if you do for some moronic reason, and they yell to put the gun down, PUT THE GUN DOWN.

Rule #2: If you want to commit suicide by cops (as this guy apparently wanted), you need to CHARGE them to ensure you won't be fed through a tube for the rest of your life; don't stand there like a moron.

Rule #3: See Rules # 1 and 2.

Nimitz
October 3, 2005, 06:04 PM
mixed about this shooting...was it necessary? no not in my eyes.

from what i have seen before police really DONT want to shoot a suspect. and show the most restrain ever.

these cops didnt show much restrain...not saying it was a BAD shoot because the threat was there...but there have been many situations just like this or even more dangerous and the police didnt shoot....

was that an AR?

Chad

No_Brakes23
October 3, 2005, 06:40 PM
Why has no one commented on the bullet placement? Try rereading the thread jashobeam. I and another member both commented on this.

IF you want to know if you are being too critical, go draw the profile of your face on a target, and see how many rounds out of 20 or 30 round mag you can put in the profile. Then see how many of those hit the "lips" or "jaws."

fistful
October 4, 2005, 01:44 AM
The more I replay the video, the more it seems the guy is resigning himself to death. Watch how this guy gets deliberately out of the car, slams the door, and stands facing away from the cops, as if not wanting to look toward his impending death.

He had made mention of suicide, no?

jashobeam
October 4, 2005, 03:45 AM
Somehow I did not see your post or the post of the other member who mentioned the shot placement. Perhaps I missed a page when originally reading the thread. It is customary for me to always read entirely through a thread whether I intend to post or not; I disagree with the practice of those who foresake reading the posts of others and skip to the end of a thread to post their own responses.

I thank you for the correction.

I do also realize, after much thought, that this shot did effectively achieve its purpose and that there are a number of very probable causes for the bullet having deviated from the shooter's intended point of aim. Fortunately for the young man who was shot, he is still alive and will hopefully become a better person as a result of his brush with death. I will retire from beating this dead horse.

Gabe
October 4, 2005, 04:23 AM
It was bright daylight, there were at least 4 officers on scene, at least one with a rifle. The suspect was not visibly agitated and did not make any threatening gestures other than his 3 seconds of non-compliance. Under those circumstances the shooting does not appear justified.

This reminds me of the scene in "RoboCop" where a walking machine gun gives a command to "drop the weapon, you have 10 seconds to comply" and then blew the suspect away when the clock ranout. Do we want machines or humans behind the trigger pulling? Sure the guy was a punk, sure the required warning was given, but these cops should exercise a little restraint instead of behaving like robots.

middy
October 4, 2005, 10:23 AM
jashobeam, you think a .223 to the jaw is just going to result in some blood and smashed teeth? It knocked him out cold, friend, same as it would to anyone. His knees went out and he sat down, like Mike Tyson had just punched him in the liver. It was a lucky shot for both the cop and the perp, IMHO.

All the cop bashing on this thread is amazing and disappointing. :banghead:

I would have shot him the moment he stepped out of the car holding a gun. The officers showed admirable restraint in my book. :cool:

middy
October 4, 2005, 10:25 AM
Gabe stepping out of the car holding a pistol is not a "threatening gesture"?! :confused:

GunGoBoom
October 4, 2005, 10:26 AM
I've tried several times, but can't get it to play. It says "Buffering 100%" at the bottom, but doesn't play - stays in an infinite loop. Oh well.

Double Naught Spy
October 4, 2005, 10:26 AM
many years ago out at the local range i met our countys swap sniper. acording to him shot placement is upper lip as this is the most direct route to the lower brainstem.

As noted above, the "upper lip" as the most direct route to the brain stem is ONLY if the guy is facing you directly. However, I can't imagine that snipers attempt brain stem shots in that manner when the brain stem is at the far side of the individual being show. A slight deflection after hitting bone or teeth and you have a brainstem miss. The problem is that the brain stem is a very small target compared to the whole head and it is small, on the far side of the person being shot, and has few directly visible indicators as to its actual location.

Occasionally, you will get a person who tries to commit suicide by eating the muzzle of their gun and pulling the trigger. If the round isn't aimed up into the brain case or isn't pointed straight back, the person can blow out the back of his neck, missing the brain and stem, and survive the shooting.

Even if some snipers are trained to do brainstem shots, I am sort of doubting it would be a normal shot for Kerrville PD.

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 01:31 PM
Oooh yay! Cop bashing and suggesting stupid human tricks! I have to get in on this. Let me download this video and I'll be back. :evil:

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 01:54 PM
Good shoot.

Watch their hands, hands kill.

Mistake #1: Got out of the car with a gun in his hand. (Law abiding citizens don't do that).

Mistake #2: Ignored verbal commands to put the gun down. (Law abiding citizens do not, under normal circumstances do this, especially when held at gunpoint)

Mistake #3: Brought his off-hand towards the gun. To me, this is a hostile gesture or a gesture of intent. Could have been to rack the slide and chamber a round, could have been to put both hands on the gun and bring it up to fire. (Law abiding folks don't do this).


Grand Jury said it was okay, I agree.

jashobeam
October 4, 2005, 03:08 PM
jashobeam, you think a .223 to the jaw is just going to result in some blood and smashed teeth? It knocked him out cold, friend, same as it would to anyone. His knees went out and he sat down, like Mike Tyson had just punched him in the liver. It was a lucky shot for both the cop and the perp, IMHO.

Middy, I saw the video; I know what happened to this guy when he was shot in the jaw. I have no doubt that others would also likely drop as if being hit by a knock-out punch. My only point when I made the comment you resonded to was that, as it appeared to me that the shooting officer was more or less broadside to the perp, aiming at the lips would not result in hitting the brainstem. One shot results in death, the other results in disfigurement. Also, even though you and I both agree that a jaw shot will probably knock a man down and out and diffuse the situation, the officer was doubtfully aiming at this part of his anatomy (if he was in fact standing broadside; and if he had a frontal shot why not the heart--center mass?). I do not think that anyone is taught, when a target's entire body is available, to fire at the mouth while standing broadside. I think that such instruction would lead to lawsuits from disfigured persons and outrage from the community.

I am not saying this shot was not effective. I am only saying, and have only ever said, that this shot in all probability was not what the shooter intended. I have also conceded that I agree that it was a stressful, traumatic situation and that any number of things (such as another officer bumping against the car the shooter was using as a brace, or having to fire before ready) could have resulted in the shot coming off the way it did.

I hope everyone understands my point here. Effective, yes; ideal textbook shot, no; good, justifiable shot, yes. That's it. I don't see how anyone could argue with what I have concisely stated in this last paragraph.

Nimitz
October 4, 2005, 03:42 PM
I dont see any "cop bashing" in this thread as alot of you are so quick to point.

What i DO see is a bunch of people analyzing the video from different prespectves..

i've watched the video many times...im not going to say that it was a "bad" shoot because the suspect did have a weapon.

he camly got out of his car and shut the door wasnt facing the officers and standing sideways, his off hand did go towards the gun....i think thats what made the officer decide to shoot.

I do think however that MOST other officers would of shown more restraint in a situation such as this...I have seen much more voliatle situations where the cop DIDNT shoot...

just to let everyone know...im not cop bashing :rolleyes:

Chad

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 03:45 PM
The cop bashing thing was quoted from me, so allow me to explain. I posted that without reading the entire thread, I erroneously assumed it would resort to that by page 4, as it always does. It did not, I was wrong, holster your sarcasm please.


About your points, no use arguing them, you're not of the mind set to understand. Not that it's a terrible thing, it's just a thing.

Nimitz
October 4, 2005, 03:52 PM
there was zero sarcasm in my post. just stating that there was no cop bashing.

and you are of the mind set to understand?...

Chad

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 04:29 PM
Well, you used the sarcasm smiley which denotes (sarcasm). :neener:

That's the "neener" smiley, I think you get it.

And no, I am not of the mindset to understand your viewpoint on this subject either, so I wil do my best to not argue it.

No_Brakes23
October 4, 2005, 04:37 PM
I do also realize, after much thought, that this shot did effectively achieve its purpose and that there are a number of very probable causes for the bullet having deviated from the shooter's intended point of aim. Don't get me wrong, Jashobeam. as a marksman trained on the M16A2, it bothers me too. I just don't know if I could do better. Unfortunately, I will have to wait till I get to the range again to try it out.

I will try to see if i can make the shot under ideal conditions, and then try it while jerking the trigger, (That usually puts me high and to the right,) or anticipating the shot, (That puts me low, and is a bad habit, I have.) I will also try it without breath control and see how much that affects my shot.

I suspect with the movement of the suspect put together with less than optimum shooting technique, (Due to the situation,) a jaw shot wasn't really bad shooting. But I have to try it out for myself before it will stop bothering me.

middy
October 4, 2005, 05:14 PM
I dont see any "cop bashing" in this thread as alot of you are so quick to point.
Read page 3 again. There's one post that's undeniably cop-bashing and a couple that distort and over-simplify the situation for the purpose of making the cops out to be JBTs.

Nimitz
October 4, 2005, 06:42 PM
And no, I am not of the mindset to understand your viewpoint on this subject either, so I wil do my best to not argue it.

thats not what I was saying.

you said About your points, no use arguing them, you're not of the mind set to understand. Not that it's a terrible thing, it's just a

no use arguing them :confused: and why is that? because im not of the mind set to understand them...hmmm yet you are? :rolleyes: (btw THAT is sarcasm)

Chad

MachIVshooter
October 4, 2005, 07:21 PM
We are not privy to pertinent details sbout this incident. Looks to me like he was given every chance to make a good decision, and failed to do so. This does not seem like any kind of encounter a CCW holder would ever have with an LEO; it appears to be someone who either wanted to be killed or didn't want to be caught.

That said, the question of a civilian CCW holder in a guns drawn encounter with LEO's has certainly entered my mind. For example, some SHTF scenario at a department store, etc., where criminals have taken hostages and a CCW holder is involved. The LEO's are not likely to know who is who initially, and it would be irrational to expect the permitee to surrender his only means of defense against the HT's. Are the police then justified in shooting the CCW holder because he did not surrender his weapon, even though he did not pose a threat to them? Because in such a situation, the permit holder inside is likely to have better knowledge of the situation than the officers outside, and may have every reason to keep his firearm in his hand. And then there is the whole issue of police impersonators, which complicates the compliance matter infinitely. Lat year, there was a guy running around in an adjascent county to mine in a new Crown Vic and complete uniform stopping people and then assaulting or robbing them. Obviously, that is the exception rather than the rule, but a matter for concern nonetheless.

OK, I'm done.

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 08:14 PM
no use arguing them and why is that? because im not of the mind set to understand them...hmmm yet you are? (btw THAT is sarcasm)

I meant, no use for me to argue against them, you would not understand the fundamental difference of where I am coming from any more than I would understand where you are. I thought it apparent from the context, my fault.

Nimitz
October 4, 2005, 08:31 PM
nineseveN- no ones fault...just trying to understand where you were coming from...sorry if I offended you ;) :neener:

Chad

NineseveN
October 4, 2005, 08:33 PM
Offend me? nah, just a misunderstanding. ;)

BHPshooter
October 4, 2005, 10:20 PM
In the police academy, we were told to expect to be a federal defendant at least once in our careers if we became municipal officers in a major metropolitan area. There are criminals who will escalate a confrontation to the lethal force threshold, and there are defense attorneys who will portray those criminals as victims of everything from racism to straight-up police machismo. Even in a "clean" shoot, we were told, we should expect a long, costly civil suit from the deceased's next-of-kin.

Anyone who carries a concealed weapon should already know this, because they would face a situation just as bad as this if they were to be in a shooting.

Just something to always remember. :uhoh:

Wes

El Rojo
October 5, 2005, 01:45 AM
The classic, "If that was a civilian/CCW holder, would it have been a good shoot?" How many times do we have to go over this??? CCW holders and civilians do not have the job of making traffic stops on suicidal gangstas that come out of their vehicles armed. Try to make such a comparison is a classic "apples to oranges" scenario. Give it up already. I as a CCW holder will never pull a gangsta over on a traffic stop. It will not happen so why pretend like it will?

After reading Devlcl's post, I am a little disappointed I sent him a free M1 Carbine stock after reading that dribble. Hopefully he will stick around here and grow up a little bit. If he feels so strongly that police officers shold have to take some shots for the community, he should feel free to go be a police officer and take some shots for the community. I mean he is so quick to give in to this corrupt society, but the way I see it, why not join the police force in order to try and change the system, and to take a few shots for the public now and then. I personally would rather see a police officer let a gang banger take a shot for the community.

Could the cop have waited longer? Sure. Did he have to? No. Life sucks, don't exit your car with a handgun and disregard multiple officer's orders and you won't have to be a civil rights test case. This wasn't a case of fate. This was a case of the man making poor choices and having to face the consequences of his poor choices.

As far as the officer's shooting goes, get over it. Did he stop the guy's actions? Yes. That is all that is required. I have shot pigs in the head with my .30-06 before and they still keep moving. Ballistics are never a 100% sure thing. So this guy lucked out and lived. The important thing is he stopped his actions and the bullet didn't hit anything the officer wasn't willing to destroy; that is a good shoot if you ask me. Just because you didn't get your blood lust and the guy didn't die doesn't mean it was a bad shot. Quit watching so many action movies.

c_yeager
October 5, 2005, 01:46 AM
Welcome to today's America.

You do realize that the rules regarding deadly force have gotten significantly more stringent in recent years right? There was a time (not long ago) when it was perfectly acceptable to shoot unarmed persons in the back for the crime of "running away". Saying that the police have become *more* likely to shoot a suspect on the street today than in the past just shows how little one knows about the subject they are discussing.

kikilee
October 5, 2005, 01:51 AM
Does anyone have another link to this? I have tried for 2 days to open this video with no luck. I have never had this problem before. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

rustymaggot
October 7, 2005, 01:44 AM
off topic, but related. this video is a example of a leo being patient. darn funny too. warning: it has adult language.

http://consumtionjunction.com/content/downloader.asp?file=/downloadsnew/cj_49093.wmv

Lupinus
October 7, 2005, 02:27 AM
I think the police were right, but I am slightly conflicted.

IMO police should wait as logn as possible before using lethal force. There should be no hesitation when it is needed, but it should not be used untill absoloutly nessisary.

He was given clear order's several time's to drop the gun. Perhap's he was under the influence, perhap's he was crazy, perhap's he was simply stupid. He had a gun he didn't drop it, but at the same time he gave no move that he was about to shoot, the gun from what I saw was pointed at the ground.

Sure it doesn't take much time once you have a gun in hand to raise it and fire. But when you already have a gun trained on someone, it take's even less time to pull a trigger.

So I think he should have obey'd and the cop's have every right to feel a threat as he had a gun and didn't listen. But at the same time the gun was pointed at the ground.

So I think that they could have waited longer and should have waited untill he started to raise the gun. You don't have to wait for him to get off the first shot, but they should have waited untill he began to raise the weapon at them. In the end the police were right, but they could have waited longer to shoot him.

Or they could have put the bullet in his shouler. I have seen plenty of reports and such of suicidal people who had a gun to thier head and were shot in the shoulder in order to disarm them and save their live's. Perhap's that should have been used here.

nyresq
October 7, 2005, 02:42 AM
Or they could have put the bullet in his shouler. I have seen plenty of reports and such of suicidal people who had a gun to thier head and were shot in the shoulder in order to disarm them and save their live's. Perhap's that should have been used here.


that would be the worst possible thing to do for the sake of the police, and for every LEO on the planet. if you do it once, then you wil be expected to do it every time.

There was a video going around a few years ago of a police sniper who shot a revolver out of a suicidal mans hand while he was sitting in a chair. It was an incredible shot that demonstrated the marksmans ability and skill. It was impressive by any target shooters standards. But it completly screwed the cops in that area of the country because the video was played hundreds of times on TV, and the mutant walked away with only a bruised hand. For the next two years any cop who was involved in any kind of shooting was compared to that single shot and questioned "why didn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand? or maybe just wound him in the arm?" It didn't matter the marksman was shooting a rifle with .3MOA accuracy, or that the target was sitting still in a chair with the gun hanging between his legs, or that it was broad daylight, or that the marksman was laying prone on a grassy hill about 50 feet away. none of that matters to a family member because if one cop did it then every cop should be able to do it.

there is not a single police/LE agency in the world that trains to shoot to wound or trains to shoot to knock the weapon out of their hand. You shoot to stop the threat, and the only reliable way to do that is by aiming center mass or by taking a head shot.

for more info why you don'tshoot to wound, look up information on the shooting of Eleanor Bumpers in NYC about twenty years ago.

to fill in some details you may not find: Eleanor Bumpers was a 66 year old grandmother who was of considerable size (200+lbs) and had a history of mental problems. When police attempted to take her into custody, she grabbed a knife and rushed the officers. One officer attempted to shoot the arm holding the knife, which had little to no effect with a .38 pistol. Another ESU officer put one round of 12 ga. buckshot into her shoulder with little effect, finally she was stopped with a another 2 rounds of buckshot to the chest by a third ESU officer. The community went ballistic over the shooting of a black 66 year old grandmother by 3 white police officers who "gunned her down in a hail of bullets". It may or may not have been any better with a single shot to the chest or head, but it would certainly look better then "a hail of bullets" in the next days headlines. This event was described in detail to my academy class when the topic of EDP's using lethal force and shooting to stop vs. shooting to wound came up. the crime scene photos were quite harsh as this woman had sustained multiple shotgun wounds to the chest and the arm looked like it was nearly severed. From then on, all of the training was shoot center mass, no more "shoot the arm to drop the weapon". After this even the NYPD also revised all of their standards and procedures for dealing with EDP's and even invented a device called the "Bumpers bar" that is used to pin people without causing any injuries

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shooting caught on tape" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!