Holy $#!+ This Guy Is One Tough Bastard!!

[Wacka]

In the SF Bay area I still see Kerry-Edwards ones- Either lazy or nuts.

[Steely Dan]

In the SF Bay area I still see Kerry-Edwards ones- Either lazy or nuts.

 

Bush-Cheyney Stupid or Moronic.

[Sig1Hunter]

Dude, all I want to hear is someone in law enforcement tell me what their protocol is when there are three officers and one unarmed assailant. I'm sure that my ignorance, naivete, foolishness, and whatever else I'm exhibiting can be solved pretty quickly...I just want to know what they are trained to do in this sort of situation.

 

First off, lets have a quick vocabulary lesson.

 

Armed - in possession of a weapon. Now, maybe you didn't read the linked article, but it clearly says during the initial confrontation that the bad guy had two large metal flower stands in his hands. I count two weapons right there. Then, he refuses to drop said weapons. A proper escalation of force ensues (deployment of the TASER). The TASER has no effect, and the bad guy is able to get ahold of a TASER. Another weapon! Now, just based upon his previous behavior, what do you think his intent with the TASER is? Jumpstart his car? Probably not. So, one would deduce that he intends on using it on a police officer. If he gets the chance to use the weapon on the police officer, what is his next course of action once the officer is incapacitated? Logically speaking, the officer's gun is there for the taking and is probably his target.

 

Now, a lesson in the use for force matrix. Deadly force is authorized (generally speaking, depending on individual agency policies) when a subject displays "aggravated physical resistance". Aggravated physical resistance is this: resistance likely to cause great bodily harm - a subject makes overt, hostile, attacking movements with or without a weapon with the apparent ability to cause death or great bodily harm to the officer or others.

 

This is EASILY a proper escalation of force to deadly force.

 

Moreover, as a law enforcement officer, I am not trained to shoot arms, legs, ears, or hands. My shooting training is focused on one thing, and one thing alone. That is STOPPING the threat. Voluntary muscle movement can occur for several seconds even after a vital organ such as the heart is destroyed. Do you think that shooting this guy in the kneecaps is going to stop him? Of course not! Furthermore, if an officer did shoot him in a manner outside of his training, that officer is now personally liable if the bad guy goes and kills or injures someone else during the fight! When we stay within the guidelines of our training, policy and procedures, and law, we are immune from any personal liability. From the information in the article, and my knowledge of basic training and general agency procedures, this is shooting is justified all day long.

 

Class dismissed

[ajzepp]

First off, lets have a quick vocabulary lesson.

 

Armed - in possession of a weapon. Now, maybe you didn't read the linked article, but it clearly says during the initial confrontation that the bad guy had two large metal flower stands in his hands. I count two weapons right there. Then, he refuses to drop said weapons. A proper escalation of force ensues (deployment of the TASER). The TASER has no effect, and the bad guy is able to get ahold of a TASER. Another weapon! Now, just based upon his previous behavior, what do you think his intent with the TASER is? Jumpstart his car? Probably not. So, one would deduce that he intends on using it on a police officer. If he gets the chance to use the weapon on the police officer, what is his next course of action once the officer is incapacitated? Logically speaking, the officer's gun is there for the taking and is probably his target.

 

Now, a lesson in the use for force matrix. Deadly force is authorized (generally speaking, depending on individual agency policies) when a subject displays "aggravated physical resistance". Aggravated physical resistance is this: resistance likely to cause great bodily harm - a subject makes overt, hostile, attacking movements with or without a weapon with the apparent ability to cause death or great bodily harm to the officer or others.

 

This is EASILY a proper escalation of force to deadly force.

 

Moreover, as a law enforcement officer, I am not trained to shoot arms, legs, ears, or hands. My shooting training is focused on one thing, and one thing alone. That is STOPPING the threat. Voluntary muscle movement can occur for several seconds even after a vital organ such as the heart is destroyed. Do you think that shooting this guy in the kneecaps is going to stop him? Of course not! Furthermore, if an officer did shoot him in a manner outside of his training, that officer is now personally liable if the bad guy goes and kills or injures someone else during the fight! When we stay within the guidelines of our training, policy and procedures, and law, we are immune from any personal liability. From the information in the article, and my knowledge of basic training and general agency procedures, this is shooting is justified all day long.

 

Class dismissed

 

 

Thanks...

 

Just out of curiosity, if you guys knew that someone had a preexisting psych condition and was in an acute phase of that particular illness, would that have any bearing on the approach you take? Or does it still all boil down to the same protocols that have been described here?

[Steely Dan]

First off, lets have a quick vocabulary lesson.

 

Armed - in possession of a weapon. Now, maybe you didn't read the linked article, but it clearly says during the initial confrontation that the bad guy had two large metal flower stands in his hands. I count two weapons right there. Then, he refuses to drop said weapons. A proper escalation of force ensues (deployment of the TASER). The TASER has no effect, and the bad guy is able to get ahold of a TASER. Another weapon! Now, just based upon his previous behavior, what do you think his intent with the TASER is? Jumpstart his car? Probably not. So, one would deduce that he intends on using it on a police officer. If he gets the chance to use the weapon on the police officer, what is his next course of action once the officer is incapacitated? Logically speaking, the officer's gun is there for the taking and is probably his target.

 

Now, a lesson in the use for force matrix. Deadly force is authorized (generally speaking, depending on individual agency policies) when a subject displays "aggravated physical resistance". Aggravated physical resistance is this: resistance likely to cause great bodily harm - a subject makes overt, hostile, attacking movements with or without a weapon with the apparent ability to cause death or great bodily harm to the officer or others.

 

This is EASILY a proper escalation of force to deadly force.

 

Moreover, as a law enforcement officer, I am not trained to shoot arms, legs, ears, or hands. My shooting training is focused on one thing, and one thing alone. That is STOPPING the threat. Voluntary muscle movement can occur for several seconds even after a vital organ such as the heart is destroyed. Do you think that shooting this guy in the kneecaps is going to stop him? Of course not! Furthermore, if an officer did shoot him in a manner outside of his training, that officer is now personally liable if the bad guy goes and kills or injures someone else during the fight! When we stay within the guidelines of our training, policy and procedures, and law, we are immune from any personal liability. From the information in the article, and my knowledge of basic training and general agency procedures, this is shooting is justified all day long.

 

Class dismissed

 

Finally a real cop shows up to explain! Thanks!

[KD in CA]

Armed - in possession of a weapon. Now, maybe you didn't read the linked article, but it clearly says during the initial confrontation that the bad guy had two large metal flower stands in his hands. I count two weapons right there.

 

Gee, all the whiners told me Sean Bell wasn't "armed".

 

 

Great post, thank you. I'll be sure to dig it up in the future next time some dirtbag gets shot and we have a big anti-cop thread.

[GoodBye]

Here is my sister's take on it. She is just about to graduate from the academy so she has some experience.

 

Hmmm... ok. Right off the bat, in the first paragraph, there's enough information there to say the officers were justified. It sounds like the guy got a hold of the officer's taser and started tasing the officers. That action could disable the officer long enough for the bad guy to grab the officers gun and shoot the officer so the bad guy needs to be stopped before that happens.

 

Then, if you back it up to when they first got there, the bad guy had "metal flower stands" and refused to drop them. Depending on how big these stands were and whether they'd be able to cause "serious physical injury" or death then the officers could be justified in shooting him if he came at them with the stands. It sounds like he didn't come at them so the taser is the next level of force down from lethal. If the guy is being "staticly resistant" they are perfectly fine using the taser on him.

 

Also... keep in mind that this is from a news station and they rarely get all the facts. The officers' reports would outline their justification. If there wasn't a taser in the hands of the bad guy then I would say they probably weren't justified unless one of the officers were in a compromising position or they were loosing steam to the point where the bad guy could overtake him and grab his weapon. (Or if the officer was getting his head smashed against the pavement like one of Portland's finest got to experience).

 

Anyhoo... that's just my initials thoughts on it. I wouldn't say anything for certain though until I got the whole story from the reports.

[Steely Dan]

How much should I reveal...I wonder...? Hmmmmm...

 

 

Here is my sister's take on it. She is just about to graduate from the academy so she has some experience.

 

Hmmm... ok. Right off the bat, in the first paragraph, there's enough information there to say the officers were justified. It sounds like the guy got a hold of the officer's taser and started tasing the officers. That action could disable the officer long enough for the bad guy to grab the officers gun and shoot the officer so the bad guy needs to be stopped before that happens.

 

Then, if you back it up to when they first got there, the bad guy had "metal flower stands" and refused to drop them. Depending on how big these stands were and whether they'd be able to cause "serious physical injury" or death then the officers could be justified in shooting him if he came at them with the stands. It sounds like he didn't come at them so the taser is the next level of force down from lethal. If the guy is being "staticly resistant" they are perfectly fine using the taser on him.

 

Also... keep in mind that this is from a news station and they rarely get all the facts. The officers' reports would outline their justification. If there wasn't a taser in the hands of the bad guy then I would say they probably weren't justified unless one of the officers were in a compromising position or they were loosing steam to the point where the bad guy could overtake him and grab his weapon. (Or if the officer was getting his head smashed against the pavement like one of Portland's finest got to experience).

 

Anyhoo... that's just my initials thoughts on it. I wouldn't say anything for certain though until I got the whole story from the reports.

 

Thanks Lana but that's not the stuff we wanted revealed!!

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

All of it baby! All of it!

 

 

 

 

There are diseases from blood transfer too.

 

 

 

 

I do all that and I've never just gotten a warning.

 

 

 

 

So let's take a look at this. You're walking down the street and a guy comes up behind you with a gun or knife and sticks it in your back. What is your gun do for you then. It's going to be given to a criminal to keep him from killing you. I have lived 43 years, 10 in the city, and I've never been robbed. A guy approached me, once, and asked me to give him my wallet and I told him he could try to get it and he left. He didn't have a weapon and I'm 5'5" he was over six feet. The odds of your getting robbed are slim. Your odds of getting robbed where a gun would help you are slim to none. So yes if you believe that a situation will arise where a gun would help you then you're a wuss who must surround their car with several feet of bubble wrap in case you get into an accident which is a lot more likely.

 

Maybe you're just a guy who gets a stiffy from shooting a gun and having that feeling of power from your big, bad gun! There is very little chance you'll ever need to legitimately use one. You'll certainly never need a semi-automatic gun. So keep quaking in your panties every time there's a knock at the door and use a good detergent to get out the stains.

 

 

I've been driving for 17 years and never needed my seatbelt or airbag either. Why does it upset you that someone chooses to protect themselves with a gun? It does not affect you one bit. Actually it makes you safer because criminals don't know who is willing to protect themselves. You resort to name calling and insults while sitting safely behind your keyboard. You cite one scenario and are naive enough to think that it covers all arguments for self defense. I can tell you that I will not be in a position to let some guy walk up behind me on the street close enough to stick a knife or gun in my back. Even though the odds are slim that I will ever be robbed or attacked, I choose to be prepared and willing to do whatever is necessary to defend my life and those of my family.

 

Maybe your just a guy who gets a stiffy from insulting and mocking people's views when you don't have to face them in person.

[GoodBye]

Thanks Lana but that's not the stuff we wanted revealed!!

Um, I did reveal stuff. It's just hidden in the text. You need to figure out the code.

[ajzepp]

Even though the odds are slim that I will ever be robbed or attacked, I choose to be prepared and willing to do whatever is necessary to defend my life and those of my family.

 

It only takes one instance of unpreparedness to result in a lifetime of regret. I agree with you.

[Steely Dan]

I've been driving for 17 years and never needed my seatbelt or airbag either. Why does it upset you that someone chooses to protect themselves with a gun? It does not affect you one bit. Actually it makes you safer because criminals don't know who is willing to protect themselves. You resort to name calling and insults while sitting safely behind your keyboard. You cite one scenario and are naive enough to think that it covers all arguments for self defense. I can tell you that I will not be in a position to let some guy walk up behind me on the street close enough to stick a knife or gun in my back. Even though the odds are slim that I will ever be robbed or attacked, I choose to be prepared and willing to do whatever is necessary to defend my life and those of my family.

 

Maybe your just a guy who gets a stiffy from insulting and mocking people's views when you don't have to face them in person.

 

What is wrong about my assessment? If you agree that it's slim you'll ever be attacked then why are you so scared you have to have a gun. You're seatbelt analogy sucks. You have a much higher risk of getting into an accident than being attacked.

 

I'm sure you're different from anyone else and can always hear someone coming up behind you.

 

If you're in your house and the door is broken down and guys with guns burst in how quick can you get to your gun?

 

Hey, you have every right to own a handgun, more power to ya but don't expect that everyone will think you're cool and a big man because you have a gun. You have the right to own a handgun and I have the right to point out what I believe is the mindset behind the perceived need or desire to own one.

[ajzepp]

If you're in your house and the door is broken down and guys with guns burst in how quick can you get to your gun?

 

Why wouldn't you at least want to have it available in the event you have a fighting chance to get to it? We keep a gun here, and chances are a situation may transpire where I'm cut off from it, but I'd still rather have it available than not.

[Steely Dan]

It only takes one instance of unpreparedness to result in a lifetime of regret. I agree with you.

 

A Lot of guns are used against their owners or result in injury or death to a family member. Talk about a lifetime of regret.

[ajzepp]

A Lot of guns are used against their owners or result in injury or death to a family member. Talk about a lifetime of regret.

 

 

Good point...you can argue both sides of it for sure...that's what's great about this country, is our freedom to choose. I pray that I'd never have to actually discharge the weapon, but knowing it's ten feet away from me does give me a slightly enhanced sense of security in the event of something unforseen.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

What is wrong about my assessment? If you agree that it's slim you'll ever be attacked then why are you so scared you have to have a gun. You're seatbelt analogy sucks. You have a much higher risk of getting into an accident than being attacked.

 

I don't care how slim the chance is, I don't carry because I'm scared, I carry because I'm not dumb enough to think it can't happen to me. How many people who are robbed, raped , murdered, etc actually thought they would be attacked? Would they have been scared wusses if they adjusted their behavior to avoid becoming a victim?

 

I'm sure you're different from anyone else and can always hear someone coming up behind you.

 

You don't notice someone coming up within feet of you on the street? Are these criminals ninjas?

 

If you're in your house and the door is broken down and guys with guns burst in how quick can you get to your gun?

 

A lot quicker than someone can get up to my bedroom!

 

Hey, you have every right to own a handgun, more power to ya but don't expect that everyone will think you're cool and a big man because you have a gun. You have the right to own a handgun and I have the right to point out what I believe is the mindset behind the perceived need or desire to own one.

 

The only time anyone would ever know I was carrying a gun would be if they were attacking me so I can assure you that I don't carry to impress anyone. You certainly have every right to rant about your ignorant views on the internet. But don't expect everyone to think you are "cool and a big man" because you are a condescending ahole.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

A Lot of guns are used against their owners or result in injury or death to a family member. Talk about a lifetime of regret.

 

 

I don't think my wife is going to shoot either one of us while playing with a firearm in the house, but thanks for your concern.

[GoodBye]

I don't think my wife is going to shoot either one of us while playing with a firearm in the house, but thanks for your concern.

And keep it out of reach of children.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

And keep it out of reach of children.

 

 

There are no children in our house, but I would certainly take extra precautions if there were. I have a safe near the bed that can be opened with a punched in code.

[Steely Dan]

What is wrong about my assessment? If you agree that it's slim you'll ever be attacked then why are you so scared you have to have a gun. You're seatbelt analogy sucks. You have a much higher risk of getting into an accident than being attacked.

 

I don't care how slim the chance is, I don't carry because I'm scared, I carry because I'm not dumb enough to think it can't happen to me. How many people who are robbed, raped , murdered, etc actually thought they would be attacked? Would they have been scared wusses if they adjusted their behavior to avoid becoming a victim?

 

You're not scared but you have a gun because you're afraid of being attacked.

 

I'm sure you're different from anyone else and can always hear someone coming up behind you. rolleyes.gif

 

You don't notice someone coming up within feet of you on the street? Are these criminals ninjas?

 

Have you ever heard of people hiding in alleys? Have you ever heard of someone walking right by you and then quickly turning and grabbing you? Have you heard of army training that specifically teaches you to sneak up on people, people who are trained to look out for danger? Do you carry the gun in your hand all the time? You're a fool if you honestly believe that someone can't get the drop on you.

 

If you're in your house and the door is broken down and guys with guns burst in how quick can you get to your gun?

 

A lot quicker than someone can get up to my bedroom!

 

First you're assuming you're in you're bedroom when it happens. Second most burglars just want to get in grab and get out. They rarely harm anyone. If you're not home when the burglary happens then another mook has an illegal gun on the streets. You'd be a lot better off spending some money to make you're house harder to break into. If you have a house that's tough to enter the jerks will most likely move on to someone easier.

 

Hey, you have every right to own a handgun, more power to ya but don't expect that everyone will think you're cool and a big man because you have a gun. You have the right to own a handgun and I have the right to point out what I believe is the mindset behind the perceived need or desire to own one.

 

The only time anyone would ever know I was carrying a gun would be if they were attacking me so I can assure you that I don't carry to impress anyone. You certainly have every right to rant about your ignorant views on the internet. But don't expect everyone to think you are "cool and a big man" because you are a condescending ahole.

I'm only pointing out the truth. I'm just saying a lot of people carry guns because it makes them feel big and powerful. If you can't admit that I can't help you. Why are videos of hotties firing assault weapons so popular with the gun crowd?

 

A lot of people think that if they were present at a mall shooting spree and had a gun they'd thwart the bad guy. The truth is they'd pee their pants wouldn't look where they were shooting and probably take out some people the nutjob missed.

 

 

I don't think my wife is going to shoot either one of us while playing with a firearm in the house, but thanks for your concern.

 

No, but someone who gets ahold of your gun might. What if you come home in the middle of a burglary and they already have your gun?

 

I'm sure you or your wife would never shoot the other intentionally but accidents happen. A friend of mine was almost killed by his father because he got up in the middle of the night to get something to eat. As he was walking back up the stairs his dad almost shot him.

 

If you're a banker or a diamond merchant or a bodyguard then you should have a gun. If you're the average shmoe a gun is less likely to save you than harm you.

 

Check this out

 

Look at how many accidental shooting occur. So keep you're gun but admit you have it because you're scared. It's obvious.