2015 Fatal police shootings. Averaging 2 a day for the year.

This is a topic that I find worthy of discussion. IMO, the Washington Post article is fairly well written and seems to provide an interesting beginning for a discussion on a topic of current events in our Nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...61433083550630

I have three take aways from the article, although I am pretty certain that I have mentioned most of these three tidbits to family and friends long before this article was published. I share them here as my contribution to the discussion:

1. If your family member has a mental illness or severe drug dependency, and they are off their meds or on some bad drugs, calling the police may be the worst choice.

2. Do not run from the police. Running from the police will significantly increase the odds of something very bad happening to you.

3. Don't handle dangerous or seemingly dangerous (toy guns) objects when the police are present and giving you commands.

I ask that the members who choose to comment remember to keep the discussion lively but respectful. I started this thread and I will lock it if the discussion goes sideways.

Now lets see who posts IBTL first [Coffee]

If fatal police shootings are averaging 2 a day for the year, but police fatalities due to felonious acts in the line of duty are averaging 4 a year total, I'd like to see a paradigm shift away from every action being for "officer safety."
Approaching a vehicle with tinted windows makes an officer nervous? Tough.

I once had an officer explain to me, "We're in uniform, you know who we are; but we have no idea who we're dealing with." It made perfect sense when he said it. The problem is that now that statement may still make perfect sense, but the other way around as well. It will take more than a couple inter office memos to reverse that kind of public perception if it has gotten to that point.

The post count does seem slow lately.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...spikes-in-2014

According to this article, in 2014, 50 officers were killed by firearms. 2014 showed an increase in the number of deaths of police officers in the line of duty.

The numbers represents trends, however, each individual case, whether it is a police officer killed or a person killed by a police officer should be examined separately. There are commonalities in violent confrontations, but they are not useful in determining causes for specific incidents.

I know the feeling of uniform identification. It is easy to slip into the mind set of "I know my team by the uniform and if you aren't wearing my uniform, you must be a suspect." It is a bad road to go down and has ruined many police officers, departments and communities, IMO.

For those who may be interested, the Denver DA's Office issued their shooting letter in Jessica Hernandez shooting on January 26, 2015. No criminal charges will be filed against the Denver PD officers involved.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...ors_picks=true

On your first point I would agree. I think I have been pretty clear in previous posts on my stance that things need to change. That being said I was young (around 16-17) when the whole 'tinted window' issue first happened in Missouri. I lived there and knew some of those cops involved. A cop approached a car and was looking right at the barrel of a gun but did not know it. They killed him and sent a message to the rest of the cops by riddling his car with over 10K rounds from what I remember. Regardless of how many, they tore both him and his car up. A lot of police procedures changed after that. Cops should feel, if not safe (it is a dangerous job), not hunted. Civilians should be able to feel the same way. We should ALWAYS be able to call the cops even if off our meds and running (while not a good choice) should not even start to be "increasing the odds of something bad happening". If the cop has to run to catch 'them'..... wear running shoes and call for backup. Getting shot in the back, as recently happened,is not acceptable, period.........EVER like that. People do stupid things. Cops have to deal with those actions.... Welcome to your CHOSEN profession. I have no sympathy for the girl trying to run the cop over and getting shot. Witnesses confirmed that is what happened and her actions IMHO warranted the result. I still think the arbitration should have been more independent (I think ALL cop shootings should be done from outside the jurisdiction) but I have no reason to disagree with the outcome. Cops need to go back to the old reasoning that if they actually shoot thier weapon, there had better be another gun or an iron clad, indisputable reason for doing so. I know I would be held to that standard and they are supposed to be the professionals. I don't know if that means cameras, training, revamp of all the procedures or something else but the current status quo is only going to lead to cops feeling more threatened with more funerals on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

If fatal police shootings are averaging 2 a day for the year, but police fatalities due to felonious acts in the line of duty are averaging 4 a year total, I'd like to see a paradigm shift away from every action being for "officer safety."
Approaching a vehicle with tinted windows makes an officer nervous? Tough.

---

10 k into the car. After murdering a police officer they hung out for a couple hours shooting up the car?

KNUS 710 is talking about this right now.

I could take this topic so many places, selective law enforcement which prevents the police from treating everyone equally, our entitlement society which encompasses not only monetary entitlements but behavioral entitlements, the trend towards more security which leads to an authoritarian government which in turn attracts the kind of people who want to impose their will on others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

For those who may be interested, the Denver DA's Office issued their shooting letter in Jessica Hernandez shooting on January 26, 2015. No criminal charges will be filed against the Denver PD officers involved.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...ors_picks=true

---

Good, people who shoot at or drive cars at the police ought to be shot. If they'll do those things to the police imagine what they'll do to Joe Citizen.

I've read the number of officer that have been killed a year in firearms confrontations, but how many confrontations have their been where the police have prevailed vs. how many they have lost. Perhaps that is accounted for in the number of officers assaulted per year? Have the number of confrontations with armed suspects risen and has the police training/tactics/mindset pushed them into this position due to the (possible) increased number of violent assaults? It looks like ambush homicides against cops doubled from 2013 to 2014.

Defensive response?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX470

I've read the number of officer that have been killed a year in firearms confrontations, but how many confrontations have their been where the police have prevailed vs. how many they have lost. Perhaps that is accounted for in the number of officers assaulted per year? Have the number of confrontations with armed suspects risen and has the police training/tactics/mindset pushed them into this position due to the (possible) increased number of violent assaults? It looks like ambush homicides against cops doubled from 2013 to 2014.

Defensive response?

---

We all (ok most of us) know the reason for that.

Hmmm ... the headline made me think they were focusing on the shootings OF police officers and I was stunned to think the Washington ComPost might actually publish a balanced thoughtful piece of journalism but upon actually reading the article, I was reassured that the sun will rise in the east, the moon will continue to orbit the Earth for eons, and the ComPost will be reflexively liberal. It does the usual trick of sort-of telling the other side much further down in the article so they can claim "balance" but the presentation upfront (which is typically the only part most people read) is firmly weighted: "police gunned down a 17-year-old girl joyriding", "police shot an elderly man after his son asked them to make sure he was okay", "these shootings, many of which began as minor incidents and suddenly escalated into violence", "shot three times by Denver police officers as she and a carload of friends allegedly tried to run them down", etc.

The three tidbits you pulled out are good bits in a well-written but flawed article. The context they added to the shootings was incomplete and designed to reinforce their underlying thesis: that police are out of control. I have no doubt they classified Michael Brown as an "unarmed victim" when the reality is he was a violent thug who showed lethal potential without weaponry.

I would add a fourth observation from the article: law enforcement needs more less-lethal options for certain situations. By "law enforcement", I mean the whole panoply of people who are charged with maintaining an orderly society. There is probably a limited role for some community service officers who can provide first stage response to some of the probably non-lethal situations like general welfare checks. I have no doubt there is an aspect of the hammer syndrome in this (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail) but I also suspect it's applicable in only a small minority of cases and we would see an increase in officer casualties so we as a society would need to weight the opposing costs and benefits.

One of the questions I don't see being asked by most of the media is, what price are we as a society willing to pay. I'm pretty sure Darren Wilson thought he was in a "minor incident" of getting some pedestrians to walk in a safer zone than the middle of the street when the situation "suddenly escalated into violence" and I don't think he's the one who escalated into violence from his car seat. The media elite don't want Americans defending themselves, saying the police can handle it all, then they proceed to try to demonize and castrate the police but are shocked and surprised when crime goes up as in Baltimore.

Question for the cops on this board: have you seen much or any media doing ride-alongs? It seems to me reporters who covered the crime beat 50 years ago were more familiar with the daily situations faced by the cops. How prevalent are media "embeds" in law enforcement these days?

How many more people will get shot before we, as a society, figure out that our actions have consequences?

Quote:

---

2. Do not run from the police. Running from the police will significantly increase the odds of something very bad happening to you.

3. Don't handle dangerous or seemingly dangerous (toy guns) objects when the police are present and giving you commands

---

What do people think will happen if they do any of these?

Quote:

---

our entitlement society which encompasses not only monetary entitlements but behavioral entitlements

---

You choose to dress and act like a gangsta, punk, or hippie, and that is probably how people will treat you. While "profiling" may be against the law, maintaining a high level of situational awareness is good practice. There's a fine line I'm sure.

I see this social phenomena (general distrust of the law and disrespect for the law and each other) as a trend in the cyclical nature of cultures. Sort of the fruit of the seed that was planted 40 years ago.

Everyone always cites the "X amount of officers were killed in such and such year" . How many were shot an survived? How many were shot at? How many stabbed, assaulted, etc.? It's a lot more than 50. If you're using body count on both sides of the line as a comparison that's probably not the most accurate scientific starting point.

Using the body count vs. body count statistics just doesn't make sense. There are a multitude of factors that have influence on that. Cops usually are wearing body armor, have training, and a fully functional firearm loaded with quality ammo, whereas there opponent might be armed with substandard equipment, no armor, and no training.

Lets take a specific incident for example. In Colorado there was an agency several years ago that was involved in a shooting. During this incident two officers were shot, on in the left thigh one in the right arm, both survived. The man who shot them was killed by a single round to the heart. If we use the body count vs. body count method, the police killed 1 citizen, suffering no losses, so by that account they are unjustified because the body count tips in their favor? That's flawed logic at its finest.

Unfortunately there aren't hard numbers to look at that will tell us how many times a cop used unnecessary force against a citizen vs. how many cops were subjected to unnecessary force from a citizen. If such statistics were even possible I would imagine it would quiet down this argument quite a bit.

I'll close with this. If the Police are using force justifiably, I HOPE TO ALL HELL THE BODY COUNT IS IN THEIR FAVOR. I'd rather see 0 cops killed vs XXX bandits, and 0 innocents killed. But life isn't an episode of Dora the Explorer where we can shoo away Swiper with just our words.

Yes, I just used a Dora the Explorer reference...
Attachment 58830

I had two separate instances where I was not only justified in using lethal force, but should have (and dozens of others that could've gone either way). But because of all the armchair quarterbacks out there (you know who you are), I didn't at the risk of my own life. I was stabbed in the face with a screwdriver by one guy...think is was 92 or 94...don't remember for sure. I didn't shoot because we were alone on the side of Hwy 285 in the middle of the night and I knew I'd be raked over the coals by people who had an unlimited amount of time to make a decision while reviewing the incident from the sidelines. So, instead, we fought for our lives for about 6 and half minutes before I was able to even call for help...help that was 15 mins away. When it was all over I'd hit the guy with my ASP over 35 times and broken both bones in his left forearm. All the while he continued to fight and didn't feel a thing. I suffered a stab wound in my face, two sprained knees, a lower back injury and a broken nose. There's a lot more that goes into police work than getting a pair of running shoes. Sometimes it isn't the bad guys who are the true enemies of the police.

And that doesn't even count getting sued for $14.5 million for something I didn't even do just on the word of some punk.

Yeah...some of the general public is a real joy to be around.

Cops are given a greater latitude in their use of force because they are charged with upholding order. Sometimes that gets ugly. The public wants it done but they don't want to see it because it is so ugly.

Yes, there are abuses. In the grand scheme of things they're like plane crashes...few and far between. Cops make thousands of arrests every day and have millions of interactions with people every day. On very, very few occasions, the police act inappropriately. Go figure. They're human beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I had two separate instances where I was not only justified in using lethal force, but should have (and dozens of others that could've gone either way). But because of all the armchair quarterbacks out there (you know who you are), I didn't at the risk of my own life. I was stabbed in the face with a screwdriver by one guy...think is was 92 or 94...don't remember for sure. I didn't shoot because we were alone on the side of Hwy 285 in the middle of the night and I knew I'd be raked over the coals by people who had an unlimited amount of time to make a decision while reviewing the incident from the sidelines. So, instead, we fought for our lives for about 6 and half minutes before I was able to even call for help...help that was 15 mins away. When it was all over I'd hit the guy with my ASP over 35 times and broken both bones in his left forearm. All the while he continued to fight and didn't feel a thing. I suffered a stab wound in my face, two sprained knees, a lower back injury and a broken nose. There's a lot more that goes into police work than getting a pair of running shoes. Sometimes it isn't the bad guys who are the true enemies of the police.

And that doesn't even count getting sued for $14.5 million for something I didn't even do just on the word of some punk.

Yeah...some of the general public is a real joy to be around.

Cops are given a greater latitude in their use of force because they are charged with upholding order. Sometimes that gets ugly. The public wants it done but they don't want to see it because it is so ugly.

Yes, there are abuses. In the grand scheme of things they're like plane crashes...few and far between. Cops make thousands of arrests every day and have millions of interactions with people every day. On very, very few occasions, the police act inappropriately. Go figure. They're human beings.

---

From what I've seen you are one of the good ones so things said may not apply to you. With all due respect your situation probably warranted more force and I would be much quicker to defend you in your use of force in that situation than I would these people. Therein lies the problem. You don't have to justify/defend everyone with a badge. This is a massive mistake made all across the country on a daily basis and it gives the general public a solid foot to stand on on their distrust of ALL those with a badge. If you (proverbial, not you specifically) can defend ANYONE with a badge regardless of the details than what's to prevent a citizen from judging negatively for the same reasons? If more of those with a badge come forward to speak out against those who do the wrong thing then faith from society would come a long ways to being restored. Instead it's the band of brothers defending another badge when anyone with the common sense that god gave a doorknob can plainly see they fucked up. In this situation they had the two things in their favor that you did not: time & numbers. When you're by yourself and back-up is 15min away and you're ambushed the deck it stacked in your favor to use force IMO. I get the 'I want to go home mentality' and it applies to many situations but we've crossed the line where it applies to EVERY situation at the expense of those you're sworn to protect. Again, a lot of what I said wasn't directed towards you specifically even though I said you. Again, you seem like you have a better handle on what's reasonable and what's not. Try as I might, I just can't see where this situation was reasonable given all the circumstances. I feel like it could have been handled better and then in the days after the fact they compounded the mistake but trying to shift blame and dodge accountability and those are two common traits of those they're sworn to protect us peons from.

I just think we need to have a massive come to Jesus on this entire topic and more defined lines of demarcation need to be agreed upon because after decades of 'Let's just throw this against a wall and see if it sticks' has progressed to the point where massive amounts of public distrust are taking place and the push back is going to cost lives on both sides of the table until that happens.

and another one...

http://www.krdo.com/news/police-shoo...chase/33437470

I respect what you're saying, Jer, even if I disagree with a lot of it. And there's no doubt I should've shot that guy. But I was afraid to because of what I knew I'd have to go through.

But this is a two-way street. Personally, in almost 15 years behind a badge I NEVER saw anything other than minor misconduct by fellow officers. Nothing that wasn't handled with a conversation that usually went something like, "Don't ever put me in that situation again because I'm not gonna take a hit for you doing something wrong." And, frankly, at least in this area I don't see that "blue line" of cops willing to blindly defend a fellow cop that's done something egregious. I sense that it's more that way in the big departments or cities out east or like Detroit or Chicago.

Maybe the tendency to initially give cops the benefit of the doubt (at least for me, anyway) comes from having "been there, done that". I've been in situations more than I care to remember where I'd acted appropriately but it was my word against some dirt bag's word and it's hard to prove your case. I REALLY take offense to the ignorance that says it's as simple as getting a pair of running shoes and calling for backup. That obviously comes from someone who is clueless to how the real world actually works. Sometimes, you can't call for backup for any number of reasons...or you can, eventually, but it's miles away. In the story I told above I was never able to actually make that call. The guy I was fighting knocked my radio out of my hand, into the darkness. After 6.5 mins a little old man finally stopped and called for help for me. The volunteer firefighters were on scene long before another deputy.

Some may not believe this but, in my experience anyway, the worst enemy to a cop who's done wrong is other cops. Nobody wants to work with that guy because it's hard to get rid of the stink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

and another one...

http://www.krdo.com/news/police-shoo...chase/33437470

---

Just from that story it sounds as though the dead guy got exactly what he deserved.

Bailey, you misread my statement and should hopefully not take offense. I was talking to the OPs original statements and the recent incident where (an admitted dumbass) ran from a cop. When, after tazzing him, the cop shot a man in the back. I honestly hope you would not defend that cops actions. As grueling as it might have been he should have "gotten some running shoes". Every situation is different. Your situation is nowhere near the same. While I still believe it should be independently reviewed, if you had shot a person attacking you, I would be the first to stand beside you or any other cop. Same as this girl using the car as a weapon. I am sure nothing I say will change your mind but I am not anti-cop. I have just been able to see some bad cops in my time and want those bad cops held to justice, which never happened as with so many of these other stories coming out recently. It sounds like you were fortunate enough to somehow miss this in your years of service. That does not mean they are not out there. Jer seems to be pretty spot on IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

and another one...

http://www.krdo.com/news/police-shoo...chase/33437470

---

Assuming the facts reported are accurate I see nothing wrong here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I respect what you're saying, Jer, even if I disagree with a lot of it. And there's no doubt I should've shot that guy. But I was afraid to because of what I knew I'd have to go through.

But this is a two-way street. Personally, in almost 15 years behind a badge I NEVER saw anything other than minor misconduct by fellow officers. Nothing that wasn't handled with a conversation that usually went something like, "Don't ever put me in that situation again because I'm not gonna take a hit for you doing something wrong." And, frankly, at least in this area I don't see that "blue line" of cops willing to blindly defend a fellow cop that's done something egregious. I sense that it's more that way in the big departments or cities out east or like Detroit or Chicago.

Maybe the tendency to initially give cops the benefit of the doubt (at least for me, anyway) comes from having "been there, done that". I've been in situations more than I care to remember where I'd acted appropriately but it was my word against some dirt bag's word and it's hard to prove your case. I REALLY take offense to the ignorance that says it's as simple as getting a pair of running shoes and calling for backup. That obviously comes from someone who is clueless to how the real world actually works. Sometimes, you can't call for backup for any number of reasons...or you can, eventually, but it's miles away. In the story I told above I was never able to actually make that call. The guy I was fighting knocked my radio out of my hand, into the darkness. After 6.5 mins a little old man finally stopped and called for help for me. The volunteer firefighters were on scene long before another deputy.

Some may not believe this but, in my experience anyway, the worst enemy to a cop who's done wrong is other cops. Nobody wants to work with that guy because it's hard to get rid of the stink.

---

I meant more in the broad sense of supporting others more than actual cover ups type of things. More as in a story like the one in the other thread where they demolished a house & given the details presented it seems like there were far better ways of handling it yet they chose that method. Then, after the fact, nobody wants to accept responsibility because someone is going to have to foot the bill for a new house. That's even worse after the fact when they've had time to examine the entire picture. Common sense says that just ain't right. Meanwhile blue line brotherhood is across social media saying we don't know & we don't have the same info & they want to go home st the end of their shift & all sorts of hyperbole that makes you look like a real douche if you even attempt to disagree. That's the exact type of blind support of everyone with a badge that I'm talking about.

Normal citizens see others with a badge support them even though it's plainly wrong & it sort of gives a black eye to EVERYONE with a badge. Even more so than just the first guy (in that case entire agency) betrayed the trust of the people. Enough of that happens & I start to see where some people develop a distrust for everyone with a badge.

I hate that it's coming to thus but if a very small group of citizens want to turn this in an "us vs them" battle I think the absolute worst thing those in LE can do is take the bait & join hands w/those they know did wrong in defense of the brotherhood because that's going to hurt the cause more than anything. This is also the visual queue people are getting from what they deem over-militarization.

I'm getting into different topics here & feel like I drug that other conversation partially into this one so sorry for going s bit astray & sorry for not explaining myself very well.

I should add that I get what you were saying about the use of force in that situation probably being justified & not doing it for fear of retribution. The sad fact is we share that same fear. I carry 24/7/365 & there was a time where I would have rushed to save another innocent person from an attacker but now.. probably not. If I find myself in an active shooter scenario I'm looking for the exit. If I can get my wife & myself out w/o being detected you better bet your ass that's what I'm doing. I'll call for help & give real good details from a safe distance. In the current social climate I simply can't risk what will likely happen to me financially if I do pull that trigger even if I'm cleared of any criminal wrong doing. So I get where you're coming from although I tend to give a little more leeway to Sheriff Deputies & State Patrolman who work out in the boonies by themselves when it comes to the use of lethal force. Too bad civil courts don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

I was talking to the OPs original statements and the recent incident where (an admitted dumbass) ran from a cop. When, after tazzing him, the cop shot a man in the back.

---

What recent incident are you talking about? In the one I'm thinking of, the runner took the officer's Tazer. I still don't know enough about the case to want to render judgment but I can at least understand a fear for life when someone pulled and ran off with the Tazer after a struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

What recent incident are you talking about? In the one I'm thinking of, the runner took the officer's Tazer. I still don't know enough about the case to want to render judgment but I can at least understand a fear for life when someone pulled and ran off with the Tazer after a struggle.

---

There was a video. You'd have a hard time defending the officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I had two separate instances where I was not only justified in using lethal force, but should have (and dozens of others that could've gone either way). But because of all the armchair quarterbacks out there (you know who you are), I didn't at the risk of my own life. I was stabbed in the face with a screwdriver by one guy...think is was 92 or 94...don't remember for sure. I didn't shoot because we were alone on the side of Hwy 285 in the middle of the night and I knew I'd be raked over the coals by people who had an unlimited amount of time to make a decision while reviewing the incident from the sidelines. So, instead, we fought for our lives for about 6 and half minutes before I was able to even call for help...help that was 15 mins away. When it was all over I'd hit the guy with my ASP over 35 times and broken both bones in his left forearm. All the while he continued to fight and didn't feel a thing. I suffered a stab wound in my face, two sprained knees, a lower back injury and a broken nose. There's a lot more that goes into police work than getting a pair of running shoes. Sometimes it isn't the bad guys who are the true enemies of the police.

---

Tyrant.



You've got some good stories. I like the one where you gave the girl a DUI after blowing a .02. She earned it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

and another one...

http://www.krdo.com/news/police-shoo...chase/33437470

---

So after stealing a car (a felony) this individual violated two of the take aways I cited above in the OP. Specifically, #2 as a pursuit generally only happens when someone runs, and #3 he was pointing a long gun at police (according to witnesses).

There aren't any specific laws against running from the police, but think about predatory behavior. Movement draws attention. If someone runs, most cops will assume that unless they look like they are running for fitness purposes, the person running is running from something. Either they are being chased or they are trying to get away from something they don't want to be near. That could be a dangerous situation or a crime scene. Right or wrong, if you are trying to avoid interaction with the police, then running from them or running past them is probably not going to get you the reaction you want. Do not be surprised when the police pursue. The absolute best way to end a pursuit by the police is to STOP RUNNING. Comply with their commands and do not resist. What I meant with the Don't run from the police take away, is that it often ends badly for people who run. Not because the police can't chase you, but because adrenaline, increased heart rates, and tunnel vision often lead to bad decision making on everyone's part. If you STOP RUNNING, the police will STOP RUNNING and then you will have a chance to resolve the situation. A trip to jail is better than a trip to the hospital, which is how many pursuits end for both the pursued and the pursuer.

And as for the notion that anyone, even an armed and trained police officer should charge forward because they chose the profession despite knowing the danger or that someone after the fact can then assess the danger as being minor because the suspect only shot once or was a skinny tweeker... Really? I am not defending the destruction of the house in Greenwood Valley. The police work for the people of GV and Colorado. IMO, the taxpayers should make the home owner whole. If the elected officials or voters of GV and Colorado would like to take some administrative action against the police responsible for the damage, there are ways that can happen.

Bailey Guns, I am glad you survived and mostly recovered from your injuries. Years on the job have a way of accumulating the damage on your body. It is a rare individual who leaves the job even close to the same physical condition when they started. We used to joke about "the young guys run, the old guys use the car and the radio." I do not know a single cop who went to work wanting to shoot someone. I'm sure there are a few out there, but they would be a rare exception. If you weren't scared when you pulled your gun out, you will be by the time the Use of Force investigators get through with you.

I appreciate that it has been about 24 hours and this discussion has remained civil. Well done. [Beer]

The video cleary (this is not up for discussion if you saw the video) shows the only way that guy 'took' the tazer was in the back as he was running with the leads and wires sticking out of him. Then he gets shot. Even if that were not true and he had the 'gun' itself, which it is, tazers are a one shot and done tool. If its been discharged... thats it. Some allow you more jolts of juice but as far as firing it again... Ain't gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

What recent incident are you talking about? In the one I'm thinking of, the runner took the officer's Tazer. I still don't know enough about the case to want to render judgment but I can at least understand a fear for life when someone pulled and ran off with the Tazer after a struggle.

---

"If the police have to come and get you, they're bringin' an ass-kickin' with them." - Chris Rock

Might be appropriate to review Rock's "How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police" video. If nothing else it's funny and may lighten the mood. But there's also a lot of good advice for a lot of people that could use it in that video...even if it is comedy.

If this is the video you are referring to:

https://youtu.be/JCh8HhZ3Bww

The former police officer has been charged with murder and fired. Video from just about any source is important. Video isn't perfect, but it is better than almost any eyewitness account.

I agree and have stated running is a dumbass move in general. My point was that does not justify (don't care about the adrenaline) 'bad things happening". The good/bad guys are also dealing with adrenaline (probably more) and that is not an excuse for their bad decisions. Cops are supposed to be better.

As far as cops 'charging forward', if you go back a read what I said was get a pair of running shoes and call for backup. Sounds like we are in violent agreement here with your young/old cops statement.

If anybody is running, that is not in and of itself ANY indication of guilt for doing something wrong. Does that mean the cop cannot or should not pursue, of course not. What that does mean is that they are NO threat to those they are running from. We are also not talking about running with an AK into a mall here or purposefully aiming at people with a car before that starts coming up. We are also not talking about when in Baileys case they are obvioulsy not running but attacking. Cops have several things the average bad guy does not. These include training, numbers, more numbers if needed, in rare cases heavy hitting numbers (calling out the Guard as in Ferguson), better comms, in many (not all) cases better equipement and finally (as in Bailey's case where a citizen called for backup) the vast majority of us the citizens........ If the populous does not feel it is seen as "THEM". The biggest thing they have though, is time (again not always, but generally). If a guy runs and the cop cannot catch the bad guy, backup comes quickly to support. If the guy gets away, they have a description and may catch them the next day. You can't catch them all. The point is, if a guy is running..... Threat level is zero unless they turn around.... Then this is a different situation.

Jer, I swear you are reading my mind. Well put. ;)

Yup, thats the video. While it is good that charges have been brought and he is fired the concern was how it was originally handled. They started to cover for him and only when the video came out did that change. The issue is what would have happened if there was not video.

The "charging forward" part was taken from the GV house barricade and some of the comments made about sending a dog in or robots or making a violent entry. In those situations, someone makes the decision how the barricade will be handled and the officers carry it out the best way they know how. I agree, the house in GV looks excessive, but to me the more important part is that the jurisdiction should make the homeowner whole. No one, not even the military in a war zone, attacks blindly into a known armed hostile in a barricade.

I understand what you are saying about having time on your side and many departments have moved to limit their pursuit policies. These are case by case issues and they will be handled by the departments and personnel as they deem appropriate at the time. My point is for people who do not want to deal with the police or end up in a bad situation with the police; one of the simplest things to do is STOP RUNNING!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

What recent incident are you talking about? In the one I'm thinking of, the runner took the officer's Tazer. I still don't know enough about the case to want to render judgment but I can at least understand a fear for life when someone pulled and ran off with the Tazer after a struggle.

---

I'm not sure what incident this is, either, so I can't comment to it specifically.

But we considered someone taking OC (I left the PD before Taser use became widespread) from an officer an act that warranted a deadly force response. I'd guess taking a Taser from an officer would be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

If this is the video you are referring to:

https://youtu.be/JCh8HhZ3Bww

The former police officer has been charged with murder and fired. Video from just about any source is important. Video isn't perfect, but it is better than almost any eyewitness account.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I'm not sure what incident this is, either, so I can't comment to it specifically.

But we considered someone taking OC (I left the PD before Taser use became widespread) from an officer an act that warranted a deadly force response. I'd guess taking a Taser from an officer would be the same.

---

This one.

OK...I remember that one. Yeah, that's gonna be tough to defend. Then again, I think only his lawyer is trying to defend him. He's already been fired, arrested and charged with murder. What else is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

OK...I remember that one. Yeah, that's gonna be tough to defend. Then again, I think only his lawyer is trying to defend him. He's already been fired, arrested and charged with murder. What else is there?

---

Conviction and sentencing? [Coffee]

Cool, Cstone

Being a cop, might I ask a question and make a suggestion. Nobody said the bad guys are smart, obviously. But we all have a fight or flight response and I think we can all agree our legs can take off before our brains engage. One thing that we all see within the media is that it does not matter if you give up nice or just keep going once that first step of running has started. If I am running and do stop please explain why they still have to be so violent? I get the concern of playing possum and just catching their breath to fight more but what is the training and how could you peacefully give up without getting a knee to the neck? Second the suggestion. The media always likes to show the "takedown". It almost always looks like regardless of what the 'perp' does 'their bringing the ass kicking with them". This does not give anybody reason to stop if they are screwed either way. Cops do need to be safe but the perception in the community is damned if ya do damed if ya don't. Realizing this perception and getting it changed can be a big step in getting a stupid first act to stop. I gurantee the guy shot in the back was FREAKED OUT. I doubt he knew how to stop because of this perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Conviction and sentencing? [Coffee]

---

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but that's my point. We have to let the system work for everyone. Nothing else can be done to this guy at this point.

First, I believe we all agree that not having an outstanding warrant or being in the process of fleeing your crime scene would be helpful. Once you start running and the pursuit begins, you are sort of at the mercy of whoever catches you first. Stopping quickly or not running in the first place usually means you are only dealing with one or possibly two officers. If you run and all of the surrounding departments have a chance to converge on your bail out, you stand a pretty good chance of being dog piled. No guaranty but stopping for the first officer and getting on your knees or on your face makes it less likely you will be thrown to the ground. Listening to the officers commands and doing what you are told increased the chance that you will not get your shoulder dislocated and a knee in the small of your back.

Some variation of the Use of Force Continuum is taught in every LE academy in the country.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforc...continuum.aspx

Last, pray that there are lots of people video taping your interaction with the police. The ubiquitous nature of video cameras in the USA is IMO what is driving many of today's issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

The video cleary (this is not up for discussion if you saw the video) shows the only way that guy 'took' the tazer was in the back as he was running with the leads and wires sticking out of him. Then he gets shot. Even if that were not true and he had the 'gun' itself, which it is, tazers are a one shot and done tool. If its been discharged... thats it. Some allow you more jolts of juice but as far as firing it again... Ain't gonna happen.

---

Mmm ... no, the video unclearly shows the wires sticking out of Slager and the Taser dropping to the ground as Scott fled. The guy who took the video said he heard the Taser go off but his testimony assumes Slager used it on Scott. He later admitted Scott had the Taser but said he didn't try to use it against Slager -- yet it looks like the darts are in Slager, not Scott. Things would certainly have been better if Slager had realized the Taser had discharged already and not shot since it clearly didn't pose a threat anymore but I don't know if Slager knew that. I'm sure the question of what he was thinking and when will be brought up in his trial. As has been mentioned, he was fired and arrested. I would venture his defense attorney will bring up analysis like this: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...aser-struggle/ and the DA will work to debunk it.

I read the analysis in the piece. Interesting and I am certain some of the information will come up at trial. Even if that is what happened, I would be hard pressed to justify shooting a fleeing man numerous times in the back. The video is pretty clear on that point. While the officer was pulling the trigger, his target was the dead man's back. I think that is what the jury will focus on, but that is only my opinion.

As a sidenote, some of the comments below the story make that site seem like it leans a shade racist. I realize those are just comments, but like here and most Internet sites, unless the owners, and moderators of a site take some proactive steps to guard against the fringe, the site runs the risk of being tainted regardless of the possible good information found on the site. The moderators here do the best they can to prevent that from happening. It may offend some members, but I hope most of the long term, contributing members understand the community here is for everyone who loves this country, enjoys firearms, and wants to be a part of this community. This forum is not a good old boys club, despite how many good old boys (including myself) we already have.

If you watch said video, you can see the officer go pick up, "casually", the taser, and drop it next to the runners dying body. It was a terrible shoot, but the officer is being punished in the system as he should be. So why does it have any sway in this conversation?