Deputy killed in the line of duty

[heavyshooter]

*** I do feel the need to say a few things before we begin this discussion. First, if you are going to bring a movie mentality to this conversation, then please do not comment. It dishonors the objective of the discussion and it misses the fact that life does not necessarily fall into the cut and dry lines of a Rambo flick. Second, I am asking the moderators to delete this thread if anyone dishonors this man's memory or mocks the horrible manner in which he died. This is The High Road. You know the routine. ***

As far as I can tell this discussion was initiated here on THR in October 2005. A few guys tried to breath life into in it 2008 but it was so old that Lee Lapin said, “…anyone who wants THIS one revived again will have to start it over.” Because I was not a member in 2005 and I have only recently been made aware of this video I have decided to start the discussion again.

Dep. Kyle Dinkheller was killed in the line of duty on January 12, 1998 by a lunatic with an M-I rifle. His death was caught on tape by his dash cam. Dinkheller was 22 years old and had a 22 month old child and a pregnant wife at the time of his death. The video is all over the internet. I have decided to not post it here because it is so graphic that I do not want to be responsible for leaving this graphic impression on your minds. If you desire to see it you can simply Google it and many sources will have it available (it is on youtube). Below I have pasted a commentary of the events of that day:

Deputy Kyle Dinkheller, Laurens County, GA, was minutes from being off duty when he encountered a speeding pickup truck going 98 mph. The deputy was an ICE (Interstate Criminal Enforcement) officer that dealt with traffic infractions, speeding and the occasional drug bust. This was a low risk or unknown risk stop for speeding. He radioed in the speeding infraction, made a U-turn in the median and pursued the vehicle. The driver, Andrew Brannan, stopped his vehicle, exited and started a crazy, dancing jig in the middle of the road while swearing at the officer and shouting ‘I’m a god-damned Vietnam vet.” At first, he ignored Dinkheller’s commands to step towards the deputy, which always began with `Sir’. When he finally complied, he attacked the deputy and a scuffle ensued. The deputy implemented the use of his asp and ordered Brannan to `get back’. This procedure was repeated, but after what appeared to be a second scuffle, the suspect returned to his vehicle and retrieved an M-I Carbine from under the seat. The first shots were fired nearly 50 seconds after Brannan returned to his vehicle despite the deputy’s commands. Brannan ignored the repeated commands to put the gun down and Deputy Dinkheller apparently fired the first shot. Brannan, a Vietnam veteran, advanced firing on the deputy. Dinkheller returned fire, but succeeded only in breaking a window in the driver’s side of the pickup and wounding Brannan in the stomach. Using `suppressive fire’, Brannan systematically, methodically shot Dinkheller in the arms, legs, exposed areas that would not be covered had Dinkheller been wearing a bulletproof vest, slowly executing him. Reloading his weapon Brannan continued firing with the final death shot to Dinkheller’s right eye. "The entire incident was videotaped by a camera in Deputy Dinkheller's patrol car. On January 28, 2000, the suspect was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death two days later."

I have only watched the video once. I limited it to one viewing because 1) hearing him die was quite disturbing and 2) I wanted to retain some appreciation for how fast the whole process was for him. Watching it more than once would have slowed it down and ruined my perspective because it would have increased my hindsight evaluation and I would not have been able to appreciate it from the deputy’s perspective. This brings me to my questions.

While I am not a LEO I can imagine being in this situation as a civilian. Maybe I am in a car accident and I get out of my car to exchange insurance information and the other driver behaves in the same manner as the man in the video. I do not believe many of you are carrying carbines in your vehicles (if you are I am sincerely impressed ). This means that many of us, if found in this situation, will have to respond to an M-I with our CCW which is similar to the officer's situation. The video made it very clear that a handgun is not ideal when addressing a man armed with a rifle. I should also emphasize that the officer was able to hit the lunatic once in the stomach before the shot that resulted in his death. You will notice when this happens because he grabs his abdomen. While they do not mention the firearm or caliber that the officer was using, it makes me wonder about the effectiveness of his round. While I am not expecting a shot to the stomach to kill someone instantly (I know better than that), I can’t help but notice that he hardly even paused after being shot.

Was the officer's gun underpowered?

If found in the same situation, how can we avoid the same outcome?

I am particularly interested in hearing from Law Enforcement Officers on this one.

Heavy

 

[David E]

This was the first time I've seen the video. The one I saw starts with the Officer telling him (repeatedly) to drop the gun. It's not clear from that video who fired first.

Tactically, he does not need to tell him to drop the gun once, much less multiple times. I'd like to think that I'd have shot the man sooner.

A verbal warning is NOT required when deadly force is imminent, nor is it required to wait for the other guy to shoot first. I blame these "tactics" on bed-wetting bureaucrats inspired by crooked lawyers and TV.

I'm presuming the Officer was on the driver's side, aiming between the open door and door post. This would put nearly the entire body of the badguy in view of the Officer. The distance doesn't appear to be that great. It seems that one well placed shot could've solved the issue before he charged the car.

Once the badguy charged, I can only presume the Officer did not move from his position or if he was able to. This may have been a good idea at the time.

I think, from what I saw, that the Officer should've shot sooner and more often.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I remember seeing this video in the academy, and it still eats me up. I'm glad his family has allowed us all to learn from what happened through the release of this video. RIP Deputy.

This incident has a lot less to do with what gun was used and a lot more to do with mindset. If I recall what was said at the academy, Deputy Dinkheller had been through one of his department's legal briefings on use of force not too long before this. Some have speculated that he may have been scared to use his weapon due to legal ramifications, even though it would actually have been well justified.

Secondly, and more to the point, this video shows the way a mind can be the biggest obstacle in a fight. The Deputy could have taken a shot a number of times, and would have been justified. But his repeated use of the exact same phrase over and over shows his mind had gotten caught in a loop. One of the biggest lessons we were taught from this video in training is that if something doesn't work, try something else. One needs to have a mindset that is able to run with the changes and keep up, constantly reevaluating what the best move is. Deputy Dinkheller got caught up in giving the suspect verbal commands. Even though the suspect was clearly unresponsive, the Deputy's mind would not allow him to recognize that this tactic was failing, and move on to something else. He missed several opportunities to stop the escalation because his mind got caught in a loop.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i know this video has been used in academies since this occurred and has been studied and discussed. it took place just a couple of years before i retired so it was never brought up in the training i attended.

i don't think the officer's gun was more underpowered than he would have been with any other handgun against a longgun. he just wasn't able to place enough rounds in areas which would have stopped the fight.

the officer was slow to react to the threat presented (there were other factors involved) and wasn't committed to using the force needed to end the situation. we know that, more than likely, we'll be the 2nd one's to know we're engaged in a gun fight. the key is to recognize the "trigger" and have a course of action that you have pre-determined that you will follow when the "trigger" occurs.

the more prepared you are, through training, the more attention you can pay to another's actions and the better effective you'll be when action is justified

 

[David E]

the key is to recognize the "trigger" and have a course of action that you have pre-determined that you will follow when the "trigger" occurs.

Agreed. And far too many gun carrying folks, including cops, have no idea what a "trigger" is, much less how to recognize and/or respond to it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Watched the video. Was the officer's gun under powered? Don't know. A single gut shot even from a rifle won't necessarily put a person down. The officer fired several times but failed to connect more than once in the gut, so the issue of firepower is a bit moot. I think the bigger issue is that the officer hesitated too long before attempting to fire the first shot which apparently missed.

Brannon also failed to use the rifle to its capability. If he avoided the ballistic vest area as indicated, then he might as well have had a pistol as far as fire power is concerned. He failed to use the rifle to its fullest capability as the ammo he was shooting would easily defeat whatever ballistic vest the officer was wearing.

So the officer failed to connect with all but one shot and the one shot that did connect was in a non-vital area. The bad guy failed to use his rifle to connect with any vital areas either until firing the last shot at the officer's head. Both had high capacity firearms. So power does not seem to be the issue of this fight.

The only advantage I see in how this fight played out was not in firepower but in the ability to aim. Brannon had the benefit of a long sight radius. Brannon also used aggressive tactics ala Platt who was also a Vietnam vet.

I realize that no officer wants to shoot anybody, but the shooter had already failed to comply with virtually all of the officer's commands. There was little chance he was going to comply with commands to put down the gun. The officer continued to issue commands to drop the gun while Brannan got it out, loaded it, and started to bring it to bear on the officer. That was simply waiting too long.

 

[Kingofthehill]

Almost wish i didn't search for it.

I don't have anything of value to add other than it was very sad to see and hopefully use of this video will help save and train many other LEO's

JOe

 

[1911Tuner]

Agree that the deputy should have shot the guy and shot him repeatedly as soon as he saw the weapon with no verbal warning. There was enough time. Why didn't he fire?

The answer is pretty simple, and I doubt if it had anything to do with lawyers and bureaucrats. Such thoughts and considerations go out the window when a man is facing death. It had to do with the fact that most cops are decent human beings who don't want to kill anybody, and they will hold their fire until the last possible second. In this case...that was too long. He hoped with all his heart that the guy would stand down before it got to the point of having to kill him.

"I've found that most men...regardless of need or purpose...aren't willing. They'll draw a breath or blink an eye before they can pull the trigger."

--J.B. Books as portrayed by John Wayne: The Shootist.--

 

[heavyshooter]

I could not help but notice that the deputy used verbal commands even after noticing that the Bad Guy was loading his rifle. He even mentioned the gun when he called for back-up. Am I to understand that he could have fired when he recognize that the weapon was being loaded?

Also, as a civilian (I live in Colorado), can I shoot a bad guy who is retrieving a weapon from his vehicle? Or is loading a weapon not "imminent" enough? 1911Tuner addressed precisely what I had on my mind. Prior to watching this video, I, like the deputy, would want to wait until the last possible moment because I do not want to kill anyone. But, like the deputy, I have a wife and young child at home. I do not want to wait so long that I do not make it home. This video has me wondering exactly when the last possible moment is. It seems to me that he should have followed him to the vehicle and shot him as soon as he recognized the rifle.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It seems we're all missing the point here. If you would have asked Deputy Dinkheller if he would have been justified in shooting the bad guy while he was loading, or after he had picked up the rifle, weeks before this incident took place, I believe the Deputy would have said that yes it would be justified. This is not about him rationally analyzing the bad guy's actions and truly thinking that shooting was unjustified. Deputy Dinkheller froze. It is a matter of the mental blockage as a result of combat stress and pressure. This kind of thing happens. People who know inside their rational mind what the right action is, but just cannot do it in the actual situation. Dinkheller's repeated commands, use of the exact same words over and over are very telling. It was like a record skipping. His mind got caught up in one course of action, and when it failed, he just tried again, and again, and again. That is the real lesson of this incident, not about the exact moment when he would have actually been justified in shooting. We're trying too hard to look at this from the outside; analyzing rifle vs pistol, the moment of shooting, legal ramifications, when verbal commands are necessary, etc. None of that is the real lesson of this. The thing to really pull from this is that when the time comes to use your weapon for real against another person, you need to have an adaptable mind. You need to keep yourself from letting the stress corner you into one course of action. Don't latch on to one thing and persist when it fails.

If Plan A doesn't work, try Plan B. Don't just try Plan A again.

It may be that his department never really trained their officers on actual shootings. Going to the range and shooting at targets is not the same thing. Repeated actions burn themselves into one's mind. If a Deputy tells 100 suspects over his career to drop a weapon, and they all do it, his mind is going to expect suspect 101 to do it too. Unless he prepares himself for a myriad of outcomes, he runs the danger of only having one action, verbal commands in this case, to fall back on. When it inevitably fails, without another action to try, disaster follows. There are documented cases of police officers emptying the spent shells of their revolvers and putting the shells into their pockets in combat, since that is how they do it on the range. There is another case of an officer successfully disarming an assailant with a knife...and then handing the knife back to the bad guy. Because the thousands of times he practiced disarming techniques with a dummy knife with a fellow officer, he always finished by handing the knife back for another round. The human mind is a tricky thing. One must think about and be prepared for hundreds of situations and outcomes. Don't let complacency and a "this is how it works 99% of the time" mindset take over. When that unexpected 1% does happen, have a plan. And a backup plan. And a backup to the backup plan.

 

[David E]

The answer is pretty simple, and I doubt if it had anything to do with lawyers and bureaucrats. It had to do with the fact that most cops are decent human beings who don't want to kill anybody, and they will hold their fire until the last possible second. In this case...that was too long. He hoped with all his heart that the guy would stand down before it got to the point of having to kill him.

To a point, yes. Yet, far too often, cops or soldiers are told over and over and over again to hold their fire, to utilize their "verbal judo," to wait for back-up or any number of other things that don't involve using deadly force. The lawsuits that result from righteous shootings should never happen, but they do. The PD's and their lawyers recognize that such lawsuits, even when they are found in favor of the officer(s) cost money. Usually, a lot of money.

Even if you disagree with that, the fact remains that most PD's do not address the issue of deadly force to the degree it deserves. I was a cop for 7 yrs and never did I ever see anyone in authority say that you don't have to issue a verbal challenge each and every time.

On a particular episode of "Top Cops" (where they reenact true events) a mentally deranged person took a cop's gun, shot him and other cops with it. Responding officers, aware that he'd already shot and killed cops, converged on the scene. One cop sees the perp shoot and kill yet another officer. Regardless, this cop breaks cover a second after the last killing and verbally challenges the perp to drop the weapon. This is utter and complete stupidity. The perp shoots and kills that cop, as well.

How about we train cops (and ourselves) to shoot such people on sight, without hesitation? And when the frivolous lawsuit comes, how about the judge immediately throws it out ? (the former is easier to do than the latter, I realize...)

Cops go to movies and watch tv, too. Since there is nothing presented to the contrary, they subconsciously are "programmed" to verbally challenge, no matter what.

Having a set mental "trigger" is something that responsible, mature gun carriers should acquire. Lives depend on it.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Haven't seen the video. Don't want to. I will say this though. The average person, leos included, don't want to kill another human being and will put their lives at risk rather than pull the trigger too soon. I expect that's what happened here. It sucks for the good guy, but that's what makes him a good guy. Wish it had turned out the other way around.

 

[TexasBill]

How do you train a cop to shoot? You drill them full of the laws pertaining to deadly force and train them to hit a target. How do you train them to overcome all the "don'ts," open fire and continue to fire until the suspect is no longer a threat? All in the blink of an eye? Without turning the officer into someone who will escalate to the use of deadly force as a matter of course, even if it's not justified?

Deputy Dinkheller was obviously a fine man who believed in lethal force only as a last resort. It's tragic to see that belief cost a good man his life but it's a fact there are people out there who believe they are invulnerable, immortal and immune to consequences. Brannen was apparently one of these and sometimes they have to be shown the error of their beliefs in a forcible, and final, fashion without hesitation.

 

[David E]

I suppose this isn't going to go anywhere good, but the fact is, a "good man" died because he didn't shoot sooner with accuracy.

He had no predetermined boundaries or thresholds which, if crossed, would activate an appropriate deadly force response, except for maybe getting shot first.

Sadly, many cops think that the badguys will cooperate based solely on their uniform and color of authority. Such is not the case, as evidenced here.

If he had shot sooner and survived as a result, would he have been castigated for shooting too soon? Proably, which makes my point. Would he have not been an "honorable" man ? He would've been called all kinds of things with "honorable man" not among them.

Does anyone think he did everything right ?
space
space
space

 

[notbubba]

I think the deputy may have thought it was an attempted "suicide by cop".

The guy was hoppping up & down half singing "shoot me, shoot me", that may have been part of why Deputy Dinkheller kept yelling for him to put the gun down.

 

[Webbj0219]

I cant see that he did anything wrong. The LEO was just not experienced. He had probably never killed anyone before. And thats a tough hurdle to overcome when your in the situation. I had a situation when I was younger, living with my dad at the time. Someone broke into the appartment while I was home. It was a friend of my brother that was a real bad influence on him, and my brother wasnt home. I told him to leave and warned to call the police. He told me to go for it. And we got into quite a shouting match. And he ended up going into the kitchen and getting a large bread knife, one of those thats about a foot long and three inch's wide. He came after me with it and I locked myself in my bedroom. And he started to stab the thing through the bedroom door. I had a pellet gun there that looked like a .22 rifle with a scope on it. It may not have been deadly but it would have caused some damage, killed pigeons with it. I came out into the hall pointing it right at him and yelling LEAVE OR ILL SHOOT. Then he started coming towards me and said,"your not gonna shoot me". This is were I relate to that video, I could imagine how that officer felt there. So he took the gun from me and shot at me with it as I ran out the back door. He missed and luckily the gun only had one shot. But now I was stuck outside of my house with this crazed kid in there. Waited for my dad to get home wich was some hours later.

So its one thing to have the plan in mind and talk about what this cop did wrong. And a completely different thing to really shoot at a human being. Even if i was a kid and it was a pellet gun, thats one of my fears even today. That Ill draw on a bad guy and he wont take it seriously and keep coming at me.

 

[TexasBill]

So its one thing to have the plan in mind and talk about what this cop did wrong. And a completely different thing to really shoot at a human being. Even if I was a kid and it was a pellet gun, that's one of my fears even today. That I'll draw on a bad guy and he wont take it seriously and keep coming at me.

Let's hope this time you overcome your reluctance and pull the trigger. Several times.

 

[Cosmoline]

A verbal warning is NOT required when deadly force is imminent, nor is it required to wait for the other guy to shoot first.

Words of wisdom here. The verbal warning business arose from some federal cases where officers were shooting fleeing felons (not even armed ones) with no warning. This was obviously a practice rife with potential abuse, so they started imposing a duty to warn before officers can shoot fleeing felons. This case law has zero application to ordinary self defense situations. But the warning concept has been ingrained in LEO's and non_LEO's alike. I remember the tragic Tacoma mall shooting, where the citizen opted to warn and verbally confront before shooting. It got him paralyzed.

Think of the legal requirements as toggles. If the toggles are all in "green"--that is if you have an imminent, unlawful and deadly threat before you--hesitation will mean your own demise. You simply don't have time for a warning or any discussion. Like Tuco said in that Clint Eastwood western, if you're going to shoot, shoot, don't talk. Silly movie, but very true sentiment.

In all the various videos I've seen and confrontations from real life, the "good guys" all tend to move their lips way too much. It's all threat and posture and challenge. Dump all of that nonsense. Just keep your lips together and watch the threat's hands. You're not a cop, you're not trying to make an arrest. You don't have to worry about all the things they do. Your requirements are extremely simple--to continue living. If that comes under imminent, unlawful and deadly threat, then shoot. Shoot with the biggest, meanest most brutal firearm or cannon you have at your disposal. Don't waste critical time and mental energy yelling threats or demands. Don't worry about handloads vs. factory ammo or what firearm will overpenetrate more. You've got to bring down the person trying to kill you. If you have a .458 Win Mag use that! Half measures, hesitation and overthinking are guarantees of failure.

 

[Shung]

Oh man, that video was very disturbing... Made me shiver and nearly cry to hear him die like that.. helpless, and alone.. You really want to be with him and shoot the mf...

I don't want to judge him or his actions, because I wasn't there, but with a cold watching of the events, and the knowlegde of what has happened, it's pretty obvious that he should have shot the bastard much earlier..

I'm glad that piece of ****, nam vet or not, was sentenced to death !

maybe his death and the video will prevent many similar deaths amongs leo's.

 

[smoking357]

I watched the video. It was horrible. The officer tried to reason with Brannan, but that Georgia boy 'Nam vet was upset over something and isn't the kind of guy to run from a fight. Why did the officer not get back into his car and drive away? He had abundant opportunities. Obviously, Brannan wasn't a threat to anyone else. "Stand your ground" only makes sense when you have nowhere to run or retreating would put you at a tactical disadvantage.

A retreat and re-engagement with superior numbers is tactically superior to a defensive battle in which you are outmatched.

Never underestimate the tactical advantage of running away, of being somewhere else. That's one of the first rules taught to martial artists and weapons carriers. If the situation is heating up, the best and first course is to leave. If your enemy is superior, evade him. - Sun Tzu

Reading further down the Sun Tzu page, I found this gem: "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." Has that ever been proven true. Thanks, Bushies and now Obama.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

 

[SSN Vet]

Not going to watch the video.... I see and read enough disturbing things.

LEOs work in a very difficult situation. They're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

They are never to use excessive force. They are always supposed to be polite and courteous. They are not allowed to make a mistake of any kind with out a heard of lawyers and arm chair quarterbacks scrutinizing every detail with high hopes of a lottery law suit against the city/state.

Yet, they are also supposed to instantaneously flip the switch from public servant to front line combat at any given moment.

Honestly... I wouldn't sign up for the job, even if it did pay well (which usually, it doesn't)

 

[Warhawk83]

I'll have to watch the video later, as my 4 year old is over my shoulder at the moment.

From what you guys describe,the Officer did not want to shoot the man until he absolutely had to. It's easy to say " I would have shot as soon as...whatever.." but you don't know until you're in that situation. I would like to think when he started loading that weapon and raised it at me that I would have begun firing and not stopped until the threat was over,but I don't know that.

Unfortunately for us good guys it is a much more difficult to make the decision when to pull the trigger than it is for a miscreant. I pray I am never in that situation but if I am I hope it doesn't turn out like Dinkheller's.

Sad situation,OT,when something like this happens is the family taken care of ? It breaks my heart to think of his wife and kids.

 

[Warhawk83]

I just watched the video
How could someone do that?
That man was screaming ,he was obviously outmatched with this lunatic.
The bastard had to know the officer wasn't gonna be able to do a damn thing to him. He didn't have to kill him.

Does anyone know what this whackjob's problem was?

 

[MachIVshooter]

To watch the man act very deliberately in retrieving and loading the weapon would have been enough for me to open up. Just watching his demeanor (in body language) at that point demonstrated that he had a plan and intended to execute it. If he had just pulled the rifle out and started waving it about, I could see the officer believing reasonably that he might be able to convince him to drop it. But the man knew exactly what he was gonna do, and it was very cold blooded. The officer would have been justified in use of deadly force from the instant the rifle was in sight, and he definitely should have used deadly force after his command to drop the gun went ignored. Or, he should have jumped back in the driver seat, thrown his cruiser in reverse, and mashed the skinny pedal. They could have found the guy later.

Also, as a civilian (I live in Colorado), can I shoot a bad guy who is retrieving a weapon from his vehicle? Or is loading a weapon not "imminent" enough?

I suppose that would depend on the circumstance, but if I were in my car behind this guy (say, a road rage type of thing), he had already demonstrated that kind of hostility, and I saw him loading a rifle, I would drive away. Fast. He may open fire as I'm leaving, but bullets have a hard time getting through cars, and hitting a fast moving target with any degree of accuracy is difficult. If, for some reason, I could not get away, I would retrieve my PLR-16 from the back seat and not give him a chance to kill me first.

 

[CowboyGSP]

Last I read Brannan was down to his last appeal to the GA Supreme Court. Anyone know the result of that appeal?

I pray this guy receives his full sentence and has been or will shortly be executed.