Police officer: brave, foolish or lucky?

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:35 pm

http://www.wlwt.com/news/officer-i-want ... e/32436026

I don't know guys. I respect his restraint but he could have easily been one dead officer it seems to me. I'm thinking he cut it way too close. -Tutt

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:16 pm

Tutt...the cop was lucky. Even the least knowledgable people know a criminal does not give advance warning and that they are pathological liars, acting on jungle instinct.

The cop was a good guy, who upon realizing every liberal main stream media is posting every cop shooting since the animal got blitzed in Ferguson, got scared and worried about his own well being and of his own family.....played it safe....too safe. He got lucky.

In the near future, we are all gonna see some good cops get killed because of that fear and the criminals know this....they are gonna push the limit. The deal down in S.C. was outright murder and the cop needs to be burnt....but by Lordy, you rush me, your gonna catch some hot lead and I don't care what color you are.-----6

Lassiter · Post by **Lassiter** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:20 pm

Yeah, he cut it waaaay too close. I blame the current climate toward police officers on the folks in the white house and the news media. Nobody wants the anal exam that comes with making a life or death decision but cops have only a few seconds to make a decision that everyone else has days to go over in minute detail and second guess. Then if your department and local prosecutors decide they did the right thing, they have to worry about a federal indictment. I fear that some good officers will end up dead as a result of what's going on in this country today. It's probably gonna get worse before it gets better.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:22 pm

Lucky? Yep. "Legally Justified" to shoot? Yep. But he did what a PEACE OFFICER does/has done/should do. SAVE lives, not end them unnecessarily.

Where most people would just start blasting, a PEACE OFFICER will put is butt on the line even for a dirtbag or nutball...

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:34 pm

I hate to say this but officer Kidder may be TOO NICE to be a cop. I would not want to be his insurance agent. I hope he doesn't have a encounter like that again.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:38 pm

I fear that some good officers will end up dead as a result of what's going on in this country today. It's probably gonna get worse before it gets better.

I agree Lassiter, if this is going to be the new standard of what we are going to expect out of our officers now, that they have to prioritize the risk of loss of life of the suspect over their own risk of loss of life as officers, then being a LE officer is going to be the highest paid job available because no one will do it who actually wants to go home to his wife and kids.

-Tutt

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:05 pm

The sad thing is that many criminals who happen to have dark skin, are going to realize that they don't have to fear cops or armed victims as much as 'other' criminals.

I remember in the 1970's a relative worked for a big-box department store, and he was told in no uncertain terms that if someone BLACK was shoplifting, to look the other way; the cost in merchandise was far less than the litigation, riots, and looting that would happen if they prosecuted...

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:19 pm

This isn't Disneyland, this ride could have killed. And the officer isn't the Lone Ranger. Thankfully, Tonto arrived just in time to save the day.

It is great that a life was saved, hopefully with the end result that the person is medicated before he kills some other target. But given the video, the policeman endangered not only himself but others he is "sworn to protect." He gambled that the assailant was not going to pull on him first, giving the assailant that split second advantage that could have ended the officer's life and given the disturbed person access to yet another loaded firearm or two.

I say that because training scenario after scenario has proven to the police that, even if an officer has his gun drawn, somebody up close who decides to draw and fire has an excellent chance of hitting the officer before the officer's brain registers that the guy is going to shoot him - the bad guy has also formulated the intent to squeeze the trigger.

This level of expectation of absolute, total selfless sacrifice to "Protect and Serve" - even for those who are crazy aggressors and are dangerous to others - is unrealistic (to put it rather kindly), even though this "view" has become a growing hue and cry in our country.

Who is to say that the attacker would not then be emboldened to unleash his unbridled aggression elsewhere?

No - I am glad the peace officer is OK - but I would demand another partner.

2571 · Post by **2571** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:07 pm

Shouldn't the officer be admonished about his 'potty mouth'?

smokenrust · Post by **smokenrust** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:08 pm

The officer sure had some control over his own actions... very commendable... BUT the nutcase that killed his fiancee and then killed his best friend, deserved to get what he wanted... and saved the taxpayers years of housing a killer.
.... Yea, I know, what is a life worth... what was the lives worth of the two that were killed at the hands of the killer?
So sad to have that kind of stuff happen... but it does happen and others have to deal with it.
It's always easy to say that I would have done this or done that, but until it comes down to the last seconds, maybe you would have done something different.... Glad I was not in the officer's shoes.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:07 pm

The nutcase was only a SUSPECT at that point. Is every cop supposed to decide, based on nothing but his radio, who is deserving of execution?

The guy could very well have actually committed those murders. He could have just as easily been out innocent and of his mind with grief.

That's why we have courts and not Judge Dredd.

1894c · Post by **1894c** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:36 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Lucky? Yep. "Legally Justified" to shoot? Yep. But he did what a PEACE OFFICER does/has done/should do. SAVE lives, not end them unnecessarily.

Where most people would just start blasting, a PEACE OFFICER will put is butt on the line even for a dirtbag or nutball...

complete agreement...Code-4

44shooter · Post by **44shooter** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:26 am

He was brave and used good judgment and self restraint. The guy didn't want to hurt him with his bluff charges and the LEO has his pistol ready if the suspect pulled a weapon or got to him. The cop did the right thing. It's not his job to serve sentence for crimes. Or freak out and smoke everyone that doesn't immediately comply with his commands.

I think questions should be asked when law enforcement kills a citizen. And to be fair, they are. If it makes them think before shooting someone, I don't see that as a bad thing.

The North Charleston video shows that every cop doesn't always do the right thing. He outright murdered that man and tried to get away with it by planting his taser on him. If it weren't for the video, I believe he would have gotten away with it. And you know there has to be many instances where there is no video.

samb · Post by **samb** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:05 am

He did four things right;
1. Issued verbal commands in an effort to exert control.
2. Drew his weapon.
3. Put distance between him and the threat.
4. Focused on the hands.

Very cool thinking, under very real stress.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:13 am

I reviewed the video again.

As before, I saw an agitated suspect running towards the officer, attacking to a close distance, with his hand in his pocket, ignoring the officer's commands to get his hand out of his pocket.

That pocket could have easily contained a gun. The suspect could have fired from the pocket at that very close range. And courtroom adjudication or not, the surrounding information on scene should have led the officer to reasonably believe that the suspect was quite possibly armed, dangerous, and capable of violence. Very bad judgment on the officer's part, even if well intentioned and even if the incident ended well.

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:28 pm

The news media, the chief and many others are praising his decision not to shoot. I liked and worked with many ex cops. I am positive he is a fine man. Unfortunately if the same situation happens again he stands a big (any) chance of getting killed. Maybe a partner too. It`s a fine narrow margin or decision to be made in a micro second. Seems there has been about 3 or 4 incidents lately on both sides of the issue in the last month or two that has been highly publicized. The cop shooting the guy running away from him in the back was the worst I have ever seen.
Quite a few years ago a friend and co worker of mine got a divorce. I only slightly knew his ex wife. Anyway after they divorced she went back to I think, her home state of West Virginia. She made police chief of some small town or large village. Some drunk hillbilly rode a horse in and started shooting the place up like movies of the old west. She arrested him and took him in. Either she didn't search him or not well enough, and he pulled a hideout and shot and killed her!
When some fool, and I dont pretend to know all the details, comes at you yelling or daring for you to shoot him with his hand in his pocket, and did I hear right that he already shot someone along with the dispatcher warning that he might be armed etc, I have to believe that this was actually a bad judgement call on the officers part. If that happened ten different times to ten different officers, what do you think the odd`s would be of all of them living through it? I guess there is no way of knowing but I wouldn't want to bet on it!
In this case I am afraid all the praise on this fine officer could get another killed!

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:38 pm

I'm thinking "lucky" and "foolish". But, sometimes one gets a vibe from a person that let's you know just how to handle them. In which case, neither would be the right answer.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:27 pm

I'm glad it all worked out. I'm of the opinion that it would have been justified, and that a job as LEO is not a suicide pact with city hall.....

I'm sure minorities, liberals, and at least one Libertarian I know of believes otherwise.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:45 pm

BlaineG wrote:I'm glad it all worked out. I'm of the opinion that it would have been justified, and that a job as LEO is not a suicide pact with city hall..... I'm sure minorities, liberals, and at least one Libertarian I know of believes otherwise.

You are still missing the point Blaine.

This is an RKBA issue.

Imagine for a moment that you are a homeowner with a legally owned gun. You ALSO have a Restraining Order out on a psycho.

The Local PD gets a "domestic disturbance" call to your residence. The only information you have is that a resident there, described in the call/on the computer, has a legal restraining order out on someone, also identified.

You roll up on the scene in time to hear, but not see, a gunshot.

What you finally see is the resident holding a shotgun in a confined space (the garage),and a man down on the driveway.

DO you shoot the person with the gun? If they don't respond to verbal commands (shotgun, in the garage, remember?) do you just up and shoot them?

What other things might you do before just shooting that person?.. because, there is a danged good chance that the person you are about to shoot has done NOTHING WRONG (gun owner (gasp), & restraining order, remember?).

But why take the chance? eh?

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:26 pm

When some fool, and I dont pretend to know all the details, comes at you yelling or daring for you to shoot him with his hand in his pocket, and did I hear right that he already shot someone along with the dispatcher warning that he might be armed etc, I have to believe that this was actually a bad judgment call on the officers part. If that happened ten different times to ten different officers, what do you think the odd`s would be of all of them living through it? I guess there is no way of knowing but I wouldn't want to bet on it! In this case I am afraid all the praise on this fine officer could get another killed!

Bill Old Friend, I think you just hit the ball out of the park. Well said. Hope the "kid" or "kids" are doing well as grown ups. I'm sorry, its been a while and I was gone a long time and my memory is not so great. But I seem to remember some strong connection with Special Ed kids IIRC. Send me a PM and let me know how they are doing!

Regards,

-Tutt

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:38 pm

Neither the Dispatcher nor Officer were omniscient enough to say, without a doubt, that the suspect in question had actually shot anyone, actually had a weapon or actually anything.

Do we no longer give anyone the benefit of Doubt (you know, the kind that a Court MUST give?), or just jump straight to the "No Hesitation" targets of old men, women with children and kids on playgrounds?

Until a full investigation is done that PROVES (beyond reasonable doubt) that this person, who was not clearly visible in the dark, actually committed a CRIME, vs just being a suicidally distraught SUSPECT, then ONLY GOD could know that the suspect in the dark "deserved" to be gunned down.

I guess the next question is...

When did it become an Obligation (good judgement) for an Enforcer to shoot someone who is suicidal?

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:06 pm

OI, I get you. I have many friends here who work in Special Ed and one of them is named Kelly, she works in the Special Ed department in Willits, CA and she is married to a police officer or sheriff (his name is Curtis ) who makes a vow every day he goes out there that he is going to go home to his wife and family.

Curtis has not committed any suspected crimes as the individual in this case, and he works as a LE official and he is of good character in my opinion as I have been over there for dinner on a few occasions. A better man I have not met.

Curtis has, at his discretion, as it should be, to decide when to fire and when not. And be investigated for it and even be reprimanded for it. He also has a God given right to go home to his wife and kids and his job should not preclude taking unnecessary risks that prioritize the life of the felon over the life of the LE officer.

I think that is the crux of the argument here. I think the LE officer deserves the right to make the choice to defend his life, or risk it, in the name of the felon if he thinks the felon is "bluffing" as was in this case.

Kudos to the officer in charge here, he called the bluff, and he made the right call. Brilliant work. It worked out well for everyone. But at the same time, if everyone did this, I think the outcome would not be anywhere NEAR so favorable, thus my re-posting of Booger's Bill's post which I think made a valid point.

Just my opinion.

Regards,

-Tutt

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:18 pm

This is the crux of the argument, right here:

He also has a God given right to go home to his wife and kids and his job should not preclude taking unnecessary risks that prioritize the life of the felon over the life of the LE officer.

The SUSPECT is NOT A FELON until ADJUDICATED SO.

The suspect is just a suspect. You. Me. Whomever the Police decide is a suspect.

I've been dispatched enough times to know that more times than not Dispatch has things horribly wrong. And I'm supposed to decide to kill someone based on that "information"?

You do NOT get to puncture a suspect on a "maybe". It won't work for you or me, and it certainly shouldn't work for someone whose job it is to "Preserve the Peace" and Lives in the community.

That doesn't mean officer's can't shoot people. Far from it. It just means that lethal force is, as it used to be taught, the LAST RESORT to actual violence.

(If you want to see a GOOD shoot... in a dash cam video f an incident that should have had at least one, if not 3 more perps shot, google "Cottonwood Walmart Shooting".)

This Peace Officer's actions were not "bad judgement" but "professional restraint".

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:36 pm

From the article:

[quote][/Dispatchers had told Kidder the suspect may threaten suicide by cop and that he could have a gun under his seat, but Kidder relied on his own split-second observations to know what to do.

"So he's got his arms at his side while he's running at me and that's the first thing I noticed," Kidder said as he watched the video. "He put his hand in his pocket there, so my eyes are watching that hand right now and nothing else."

Knowing backup was coming, Kidder back-pedaled while the suspect continued to insist Kidder shoot him.

"I was trying to open a dialogue with him. 'I don't want to shoot you, get on the ground,' but he wasn't having it. He kept repeating, 'Shoot me.' At one point, he said 'Shoot me or I'll shoot you,'" Kidder said.

Then, the suspect charged at Kidder again. Kidder tripped and fell backwards.

"He got towards my face right as I lost balance," Kidder said. "I'm thinking, at this point, that if he goes into attack me, that I'll have to use deadly force to defend myself."

Just in time, backup arrived, and the suspect surrendered.
quote]

OI, the officer has the choice to make here, and be investigated for it, not some stupid Liberal mandate that all officers need to prioritize the risk to life of the felon over their own lives.

That is total B.S. and no one is going to want this job if that is what is required of them. Please allow them the discretion to make their own choices, be investigated for them, and see what happens.

This case was lucky circumstance only. That officer would have likely been dead by knife or gun wound when he fell to the ground right in front of the suspect not knowing what the suspect had in his pocket, and only surmising that it was a bluff. His call, his life. He got lucky. I'm not going to require all LE officers to follow in is suit. Not at all.

-Tutt

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:42 pm

Tutt speaks the truth..... OI, I know you to be armed to the teeth, and ready to administer deadly force in an instant to protect your loved ones. Think of it as the LEO protecting his loved ones

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:47 pm

Thanks Blaine. OI is a public servant and he does things I could never do regarding emergency work. I do respect his opinion, and I respect him for what he does in his community, but in this case, we respectively disagree. Not saying we are still not on good terms however. At least in my play book. Regards, -Tutt

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:53 pm

CowboyTutt wrote:Thanks Blaine. OI is a public servant and he does things I could never do regarding emergency work. I do respect his opinion, and I respect him for what he does in his community, but in this case, we respectively disagree. Not saying we are still not on good terms however. At least in my play book. Regards, -Tutt

I consider OI a bud....We've shared tales, and coffee....I'd welcome him into my company under any circumstances. We have lots of interesting conversations in Politics

One thing neither one of is does is sit on the fence....all in, or nothing....And when we're wrong, we admit it....

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:00 pm

Again... "Dispatch Said".

I've been to dispatched calls where the DRT "victim" was walking around and where the victim had apparently had a sex change (and changed color, height etc.) during my transit time... (and worse).

And these were largely from information relayed by Professionals (PD/SO/Fire) to Dispatch then Chinese Telephone'd back to me in EMS/Fire.

Never, Ever, make Life and Death decisions based on what Dispatch says.

I'm not talking about some sort of "mandate", just the kind of training I got in LE back in the mid '80s.... coupled with a genuine comprehension that DISPATCH IS FREQUENTLY WRONG.

Again, a suspect is a suspect. Not a Felon. Not a Perp. Not a scum sucking dirtbag. A suspect, who may, in fact be a violent criminal that deserves to be shot for actually attacking someone, or may just be... you... or me... or your scared kid... or distraught parishioner...

ANYONE can be a "suspect" just by being in the wrong (right?) colored car on a street near where "dispatch" sends you.

And that's how we get little oriental women delivering newspapers in their "suspect car" shot up while the big-black BG (who WASN'T a "suspect" any longer at that point) is running around.

This isn't about PC, or "Liability" or anything else. It's about being a PEACE OFFICER rather than someone who sees their job as Combat.

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:14 pm

"I was trying to open a dialogue with him. 'I don't want to shoot you, get on the ground,' but he wasn't having it. He kept repeating, 'Shoot me.' At one point, he said 'Shoot me or I'll shoot you,'" Kidder said.

Then, the suspect charged at Kidder again. Kidder tripped and fell backwards.

"He got towards my face right as I lost balance," Kidder said. "I'm thinking, at this point, that if he goes into attack me, that I'll have to use deadly force to defend myself."

Just in time, backup arrived, and the suspect surrendered.

I read the above and pasted it. The video shows him falling backwards, tripping and you can see his shoes fly up. In my opinion he waited too long and was saved by the other officer arriving. As I see it, he is given high praise for what might influence other officers in getting killed over trying the same thing.
In my opinion he made a wrong decision, was luckier than hell, and by the liberal media praising him others may die. I am no expert, I never had it happen to me and dont want or expect it to. My old best friend got shot walking into a store in uniform to get a pop or snack out of a cooler. The place was being held up and he didn't know it. He got shot near his shoulder and he had a permanent bum weak arm. He told me he had his head down and really didn't even remember drawing and killing the robber after being shot. This was about 55 years ago. He died last year.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:34 pm

BlaineG wrote:Tutt speaks the truth..... OI, I know you to be armed to the teeth, and ready to administer deadly force in an instant to protect your loved ones. Think of it as the LEO protecting his loved ones

Not the same. In a Public Safety roll, one's job is to protect the Public.

Like I said earlier, that does NOT mean that one is not dynamically defensive, just that one is not aggressively offensive.

There is a significant and fundamental difference between the two.

Some perspective:

When I did DOC "inmate control" training everyone in my class had to go into a Cell and confront a hostile "inmate".

The majority came out exhausted, battered and, in one case, actually slightly injured (so was the instructor).

They simply forgot &/or ignored their Training and became aggressive when the instructor did.

When my turn came and the Instructor refused to communicate (deescallate) and charged into my reaction bubble, I simply knocked the him out with a Brachial Stun, cuffed him & walked out when told to do so. (All on video... interesting to watch actually, because I really wasn't thinking about the move until it was the only appropriate option. Weird stuff they teach actually works...)

Dynamic Defense (in this case PPCT) vs aggression.

That's what I am talking about.

As a Peae Officer you have advantages that a suspect - whether a violent criminal or innocent person - does not have... Body armor. Physical Training (hopefully). Less Lethal weapons. Radios and Backup.

These things give you more options than you or I, as victims of street crime, have. Things that make a guy in a T-shirt reasonably "fear for his life" are (probably should be) only extra datapoints in the Decision Process called the OODA Loop (observe, orient, decide, and act). As long as I maintain my OODA loop - and can break yours - I win - and it's part of the "Observe" function to determine if a threat is actually a Threat - in the Act stage - or still in the Decide stage... or simply DIS-oriented.

In this case, the officer was lucky because his trip & fall broke HIS OODA loop but he was able to regain orientation, decide then act with alacrity.

If he had never had his weapon out, if he had never used a command voice, if he had not maintained cool, despite the situation, THEN, I would suggest his judgement was faulty. But throughout it all, despite his decision to not be aggressive, he maintained a dynamic defensive posture.

It only looks bad because he fell down.

And Blaine? I'm not wrong. I'm just trained in Old School Policing... which is, sadly, no longer the way most departments do things...

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:44 pm

Booger Bill wrote:"I was trying to open a dialogue with him. 'I don't want to shoot you, get on the ground,' but he wasn't having it. He kept repeating, 'Shoot me.' At one point, he said 'Shoot me or I'll shoot you,'" Kidder said.

Then, the suspect charged at Kidder again. Kidder tripped and fell backwards.

Again... have we come to the point where cops are obliged to kill people simply because they ask? Call Dr. Kevorkian! New Paradigm!

Booger Bill wrote:"He got towards my face right as I lost balance," Kidder said. "I'm thinking, at this point, that if he goes into attack me, that I'll have to use deadly force to defend myself."

Which is exactly what the Use Of Force Continuum teaches. Lethal Force is your LAST response when there is no other option.

Booger Bill wrote:Just in time, backup arrived, and the suspect surrendered.

Which proves the point. Had he actually been suicidal (and most people really aren't) he would have done more than bluff-charges and surrender. If he really was armed, and had a death wish, he would have done an OK Corral on the cop.

At the time of the incident, the cop did NOT know with any rational certainty who he was dealing with - only the supposition provided by dispatch. He did what was appropriate to DE-ESCALATE the situation without just executing someone on just the info provided by a radio transmission and the observation of derangement.

And as far as I know, it's not a capital crime to be deranged. Locked up, sure, but not summarily executed.

Yes, there are Risks to being a Peace Officer. There are also risks in crawling through a burning building where the temperature over your head is upwards of 900deg and you have to keep testing the floor to make sure it won't collapse under you and the few hundred pounds of water you are dragging in your hose. Even wearing masks and gloves there are risks in going to the home of a sick old lady and packaging her up to go to the ER... or sticking your finger into some poor fool's femoral artery so he doesn't bleed out before the FD cuts the car out from around you and the fool.

Public Service is about helping the public - and it includes RISKS that most people can neither understand or wish to participate in. And that's OK. But if you don't want to put yourself on the line, then you have no business believing that you are there to help the Public.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:07 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, OI, but DOC does not allow weapons when you're on the block.....
Also, I've read about the brutal "old time policing" I think I prefer the modern version where I have an excellent chance of survival if I do exactly as I'm told.....

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:08 pm

With that thinking, why bother even carrying a gun? You shouldn't shoot until already shot? I think you watched too much of the lone ranger. No offense intended. We just disagree.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:21 pm

He got lucky and had bad judgement.

By his training and previous experience (coworkers of this guy are known to me), he should have shot the guy.

I most likely would have shot the guy.

We had a situation like this go down 2 days ago. Only reason the guy got tasered as opposed to shot was he was barechested and his hands were exposed.

firefuzz · Post by **firefuzz** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:06 am

I have watched the video of this incident over and over and over. I usually try not to second guess LEO's decisions simply because I wasn't there. But with the vest cam we were basically seeing what he was and in my opinion both the LEO and the suspect are lucky the other LEO's arrived when on scene at that time. The arrival of other units, IMHO, is the only thing that allowed this situation to turn out the way it did. One more minute and I think the ending would have been different.

As I watched the video of this unwind for the first time I kept thinking "God, don't let him trip.", well he did. This officer's nickname would now be Lucky. That was NOT a tactical retreat, he was running. There is a difference. As a LEO instructor I will use this video, and that's exactly how I will teach it. He was lucky. If I was his department instructor I'd be tearing a chunk off his backside and recommending him for both remedial training and a chat with a LE shrink, both for his and the publics safety.

One of the many questions any person entering law enforcement HAS to ask themselves is "Can I pull the trigger?" WE don't WANT LEO's that have a desire to shoot someone but WE NEED LEO's that can pull the trigger. I'm not sure this man can in any situation and would refuse to ride with him out of fear for my own safety. There would always be that question in my mind if he could pull the trigger to save my life and THAT is the one question no LEO should have about his partner.

IMHO this man should seek another profession before he gets himself or someone else hurt or killed. I also think this video and incident is going to cause a lot of grief for LEO's that are forced to use deadly force in the future. This incident is a very rare exception and NOT what will be portrayed as a proper course of action to be used by all LEO's as the LIBTARD cop haters will try and make it.

Rob

Rob

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:33 am

Shrug.

Whatever.

I guess suicide by cop is an acceptable norm these days and cops should be expected to participate.

That's not how or what I was taught in any of my Use of Force classes from 1987 on.

One reason I'm ot of the business of LE/DOC etc is because the brass from about 2000 on (and in more urban areas) was always griping that I didn't get into enough fights. I got compliance by controlling the situation, and reinforcing the Rules, without getting hurt or hurting others... and that annoyed people, especially the ninja squad.

But when you spend your entire day, unarmed, with verified felons within your reaction zone it's best to figure out how to gain compliance without getting shivved or broken bones - and being "aggressive enough" is not the way to accomplish that and contrary to published rules and guidelines, regardless of what the brass thinks.

I do the things I do to protect Life and Property.

I still treat broken and mangled bodies in the middle of the road despite Bloodborne Pathogens and idiot lookie-loos who can't see flashing lights and drive around my ambulance.

I still crawl into burning buildings despite finding multiple 25lb propane tanks in the debris under my feet in the livingroom I just extinguished. (Structure fire I was on last month actually. Thanks Dispatch, for failing to let us know that the initial fire was from a propane space heater... just like the Homeowner told you.

)

But I'm not going to cap a disturbed person who is not visibly armed just because they say want me to.

There are other options. Maybe not backpedaling until you trip (that IS a training issue), but there other options.

44shooter · Post by **44shooter** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:04 am

The cop was ready to shoot if warranted. I believe if the suspect would have pulled a weapon, he would have been shot. I believe the cop would have shot him if he pressed the attack after the cop fell. The video is extraordinary in that the cop kept his wits and didn't let excitement or fear take over in a threatening situation. It was a one on one situation. The cop really only had his own safety to consider, not a partner's or a citizen's. He played it well. The fall wasn't good and I'm not sure that assuring the suspect that he didn't want to shoot was a good idea. But, it turned out well and the officer really wasn't all that vulnerable except maybe when he tripped. If anything the suspect was lucky, sounds like many would have ventilated him without hestitation. He asked for it after all.

Anything as long as you get to go home, right?

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:27 pm

Maybe we should train LEO`s to shoot their knee`s out as they bare their chest`s dareing you to shoot and are coming to get you? Many years ago I knew a badly crippled retired ex CHP officer that changed his career to a locksmith. He was in a standoff with a guy who had a shotgun and the guy shot his feet that he could see under his patrol car! That must have stung!

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:40 pm

Backup was on the scene...What better way to get your "suicide by cop" than to shoot one?

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:08 pm

BlaineG wrote: Backup was on the scene...What better way to get your "suicide by cop" than to shoot one?

Backup was on scene... if the deranged man should have been shot, why didn't backup do it? I mean, there was a cop down and vulnerable with a poor sight picture, right?

Booger Bill wrote:Maybe we should train LEO`s to shoot their knee`s out as they bare their chest`s dareing you to shoot and are coming to get you?

Without a weapon in his hand, unless he's Arnie or Chuck Norris, a bare chested man "coming to get me" doesn't need to be shot. There are other methods, based on decades of human performance research, that a cop learns or is issued (Less Lethal weapons) for dealing with unarmed &/or mentally disturbed suspects. (Yes, you still shoot an armed aggressor. There has never been a suggestion that you shouldn't.)

Booger Bill wrote:Many years ago I knew a badly crippled retired ex CHP officer that changed his career to a locksmith. He was in a standoff with a guy who had a shotgun and the guy shot his feet that he could see under his patrol car! That must have stung!

And it has exactly what to do with the context of an UNARMED man begging to be killed by a cop?

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:14 pm

That pocket could have easily contained a gun. The suspect could have fired from the pocket at that very close range. That is why we are trained to demand that the suspect take his hands out of his pockets where we can see them.

Verdict: Officer was brave, foolish AND lucky, per the topic titlle. Hope his luck doesn't run out.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:39 pm

He did, in fact, remove his hand from his pocket before his last bluff charge and had both hands clear and empty before and after the officer fell.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:40 pm

And it has exactly what to do with the context of an UNARMED man begging to be killed by a cop?

Must be great to have X-Ray vision....

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:48 pm

BlaineG wrote:
And it has exactly what to do with the context of an UNARMED man begging to be killed by a cop?
Must be great to have X-Ray vision....

Presumption of innocence. I know it's not fashionable any more, but it IS what our entire system of jurisprudence is based upon.

His hands were empty and clear for the majority of the encounter, and he DID comply with the order to remove his hand from his jacket BEFORE his last rush.

But, for argument's sake, let's just say that if every suspect is presumed to be armed and guilty, isn't it equally valid that I should presume that every housefire I roll up on is, in fact, a meth house or full of propane bottles and tht I should stand back and just watch it burn?

Can't be too safe you know...

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:05 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
And it has exactly what to do with the context of an UNARMED man begging to be killed by a cop?
Must be great to have X-Ray vision....
Presumption of innocence. I know it's not fashionable any more, but it IS what our entire system of jurisprudence is based upon.

Innocent people don't rush LEOs and pretend to have a gun.

His hands were empty and clear for the majority of the encounter, and he DID comply with the order to remove his hand from his jacket BEFORE his last rush.

Too bad he didn't comply to cease and desist.

But, for argument's sake, let's just say that if every suspect is presumed to be armed and guilty, isn't it equally valid that I should presume that every housefire I roll up on is, in fact, a meth house or full of propane bottles and tht I should stand back and just watch it burn?

No

Can't be too safe you know... Yes

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:16 pm

BlaineG wrote:Innocent people don't rush LEOs and pretend to have a gun.

So a mentally disturbed suspect is not to be presumed innocent? The guy who is acting suicidal MUST be guilty of SOMETHING... right?

BlaineG wrote:Too bad he didn't comply to cease and desist.

Suicidal Ideation/altered mental state does strange things to people.

BlaineG wrote:
Old Ironsights wrote:But, for argument's sake, let's just say that if every suspect is presumed to be armed and guilty, isn't it equally valid that I should presume that every housefire I roll up on is, in fact, a meth house or full of propane bottles and that I should stand back and just watch it burn?
No

Why not? If all suspects are actually armed and guilty felons who deserve to be shot for suicidal behavior then why shouldn't a House Fires be treated like known Meth houses and simply allowed to burn to the ground?

I mean, this whole discussion is about trying to protect the lives of the guys in uniform, right?

firefuzz · Post by **firefuzz** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:39 pm

I spent 31 years of my life either as a firefighter/EMT or LEO, several of those years doing both due to my schedule as a firefighter. I am a nationally certified instructor in both fields. I served as a field supervisor in both professions, 11 years in one and 16 in the other. OI, your comparison of FF/EMT job risk and LEO job risk is like comparing apples and oranges. True all the above jobs can be dangerous but most of the time FF/EMT's are welcome at the scene whereas with LEO's most of the time at least half the people present wish they weren't there. The unpredictability of the people LEO's are having to interact with in their jobs is something that is much harder to deal with by policy and procedures like we use in the FF/EMT field. How many times have you had to move to a defensive posture on a fire....let the fire building go and protect the exposures? LEO's can't always just back up.

LEO's are trained to gain and maintain control of the situation they are involved in. You tell me how this officer was in any way in control while running backwards? Also, had he chosen to take a shot that's one of the hardest shots there is to make accurately. He should have shot the suspect the second he thrust his hand into his pocket.

I never expected my LEO partners to be Chuck Norris in a fight or Bill Jordan with a gun. But I did expect them to be right in there with me no matter what the situation. Once I confirmed an officer had WHU (Won't Hook Up) syndrome, he never rode with me again. During my career I ran off three LEO's that never should have been issued badges because of this. Same with firefighters...if I noticed a man managing to never be on the inside with the hose I made it a point to have him assigned to me. If he couldn't stand the heat I had 20 people that wanted his job.

It is fortunate, in more ways than one, that the backup officers arrived just as he fell. He could no longer retreat and in about another 30 seconds he was probably going to be forced to make a decision to fish or cut bait. I have no idea what his decision would have been, but he better do some soul searching and answer that question for himself.

BTW, I can see NO connection with this incident with RBKA, it's just not there.

Rob

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:50 pm

firefuzz wrote:...
BTW, I can see NO connection with this incident with RBKA, it's just not there.

Rob

The connection is simply: Do we shoot this mentally disturbed suspect on a presumption of guilt / possibility of a weapon or do we presume innocence and take a tactical decision based upon visible reality?

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:13 pm

I mean, this whole discussion is about trying to protect the lives of the guys in uniform, right?

Perhaps it has been, but maybe we should be looking at the bigger picture and expand that to include the safety of the community too OI.

A couple more thoughts.

One, I think the suspect really came to the realization that despite trying to commit "suicide by cop" that he realized that this officer was willing to run away, FALL DOWN, and still not shoot him. So I think he sort of gave up, laid down and surrendered and it had nothing to do with back-up arriving.

Two, I think the officer felt that he still had a "bead" on the suspect with his firearm even though he was still flat on his back and he could fire anytime. I also think that there was actually a moment when he first fell down that he actually was vulnerable to being shot because he was distracted by his fall. He very quickly recovered, and regained the ability to shoot, but I think if you watch the video there was a moment there.

Three, if the suspect had actually shot the officer and afterwards maybe even have gotten away, how does that protect the community at large? So he can victimize someone else? Clearly it doesn't. Nor the officer.

So, the fifty million dollar question is, do the rights of the individual accused of crimes from the most recent data we have somehow trump the rights of the officer to go home to his family AND the community be a safer place once this guy is removed from the streets?

Its a valid question and one worth asking.

Our criminal justice system is set up upon the premise that we would rather "let a criminal go free" than falsely convict an innocent person. Civil law is not the same and based upon a lower threshold of proof called "preponderance of evidence". I think most of us already know this, this is a great forum!

OI, I admire your values, and it would seem to me you are arguing for the "better to let the suspect live" paradigm based upon the possibility that dispatch only reported the facts they had, which could have been wrong, and not shoot the guy. You keep extending yourself to protect the suspect and more and more place yourself and the officer at risk IMHO.

Obviously, this is a very complicated case and IMHO it should be left up to the officer to make that call, but his decision will be open to review later.

But again, if we are going to start throwing our LE officers "under the bus" on a routine basis, then I expect there will be a real short fall of people wanting to be LE officers.

One last thought on the subject but humans tend to compartmentalize their values and not apply the same beliefs to similar situations with another person. What if the person at risk of being harmed by lack of action of the officer was directed at a family member or spouse? Do the same rules of "benefit of the doubt" apply then? They shouldn't. A human life is a human life after all right? It should be.

-Tutt

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:54 pm

Ok...OI wins.....LEOs are expendable