friendly fire

Glass

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
65
Location
Oregon, USA
"may be police agencys should re think their double - tripple tap policy"

I do not mean to be rude in my response but: maybe you should get some education regarding the use of force.

When we use a lethal level of force, we are obligated to use it fully and thoroughly. There is no legal (i.e. case law) reason for an officer to only fire one round. In fact, almost universally, cops are trained to fire multiple rounds to help offset the pathetic terminal performance of handguns. In fact, the officer can be held personally liable if he fails to use enough force. Very few jobs can cause you to lose everything (car, home, freedom) because of decisions made in less than one second.

What if the wounded officer had not been an officer at all? What if he had been some scumbag who managed to kill the one of the others guys before he went down due to an insufficient number of rounds hitting home? The family of any victims could (and frequently do) sue the city citing the officer's failure to stop the assailant. This sort of lawsuit is almost routine in some parts of the country.

I feel for the wounded officer but I feel for the guy who shot him as well (and maybe more). Until the investigation is complete, I'll reserve my judgement against either man. This is a nightmare scenario for any one of us. I only hope and pray that this doesn't cost anyone their life or career.

Again, I do not mean to sound rude, but some damned education before you go spouting off about that of which you know not.

Patrick
 

markdi

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,403
Location
Portland Oregon
It is my view that police use too much force in some situations.

especially in Oregon

I am not ignorant(about this subject anyway - ha ha)

I also am of the opinion that police officers should be bigger and stronger - better trained Physically
like they were years ago.

so that they do not need to shoot - to kill - un armed naked people.
 
Last edited:

Glass

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
65
Location
Oregon, USA
"It is my view that police use too much force in some situations.
especially in Oregon"


You're kidding, right? I love this state but it is one of the most "hug-a-thug" states out there.

From the US Dept of Justice:
"The police departments in Oregon had a total of 150,841 citizen contacts during 1995. Together, there were only 7 complaints of excessive force..."
( http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/183648.pdf )

"I am not ignorant(about this subject anyway - ha ha)"

Please elaborate on your level of training in regards to the legal use of force. I have several hundred hours of training and several documented uses of force. The most recent of which took place two weeks ago against a guy who absorbed 5+ applications of the TASER and didn't stop fighting. It wasn't until he had kicked my partner in the head a couple times that we resorted to a higher level of force and were able to subdue him. When he sobered up, he was apollogetic... and sore.

"I also am of the opinion that police officers should be bigger and stronger - better trained Physically"

So females shouldn't be allowed to be police? I'm 5'10" and 165 lbs. My very first fight was with a subject that was 6'3" and weighed 234 (according to his ODL). I took him to the ground with a hair takedown and restrained him until backup arrived.

We have a physical test here in Oregon called the ORPAT. My time is 3:57. You have to be below 5:30 just to get a job at my agency and about 30% of applicants fail. This test involves running, climbing, crawling, a weight machine, and a 180# dummy drag. Last time I ran it, two people had to go to the hospital after running it.

"so that they do not need to shoot - to kill - un armed naked people."

I am unsure of which case you are referring to, but just because someone doesn't have a weapon, doesn't mean they are not dangerous. I will go home every night and if that means I have to hurt someone who is trying to hurt me, so be it.

Illegal drugs like PCP and meth do exist and some people go nuts after choosing to use it. Now should I let some guy beat me to death just because he is unarmed? The courts (via case law) have said repeatedly that I do not.
"If the level of force is justified, injury to the suspect is of no consequence."

With all due respect, you are wrong. However, I will continue to risk my own safety to protect complete strangers, like yourself, because cannot stand by and allow evil people to destroy my community.

Patrick

edited by Patrick to fix an error
 
Last edited:

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
I don't think the terminal effects of a handgun, a the number of rounds required are in question here. A well placed .22 will kill just as fast as .45 that is not. Typically police depts. have gone to higher capacity handguns for the amount of ammo they can carry. The numbers do show that even the best trained, in a fire fight, will have only a 5-10% hit rate. Of course, how fluid the situation is also a determining factor.

I am not at all oppose to the shoot COM to stop the threat. I would do the same with the optional 2-COM, 1-head, if the situation allows it. I don't have to answer to why I took the head shot though. Only why I took the shots in the first place.

I support the police, and at the same time many departments are run like a gastapo. If only they would answer to a citizen council instead of an internal affairs, or Board of proffessional standards, I think most citizens would feel better about what they do.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Police weapons are chosen for "stopping power" which translates as doing the most damage and killing the bad guy as quickly as possible. There is no time to decide if he should just try to wound the guy or shoot him in the foot or something. Once an officer makes the decision to pull that gun out of his holster and point it at you the decision that you are a threat that has to be killed in order to keep you from hurting the officer or other people around you has already been made. If you find yourself in this situation you will be very lucky to have a heartbeat to throw away whatever the officer thinks is a gun and put yourself on the ground before you're dead. If you do not understand the seriousness of having an officer point his gun at you then you're sunk. They do not threaten with their guns if they aren't seriously going to use them. That is as it should be.

In any case where we rely on an individual to make a life or death (or any decision with consequences really) choice in a hurry there are going to be mistakes. If you want the circumstances where it IS warranted to be handled properly, then there are going to be a rare few times that it's used in error. At least in hind sight. There is a trend in government and large business to take away an individuals responsibility for their actions and legislate the proper response to everything that they think might happen. This leads to organizations like the DMV ;) Do you want the same managers that thing the DMV provides good customer service to do the same management work for the police? I'll trust the individual officers first thank you.

There are definitely individual officers and individual departments that have problems, either socially or training wise on making these decisions. Take my own local police department who are so concerned about insulting the sensibilities of the poorer members of this city (after all they are poor because the system has failed them and they are so downtrodden and oppressed by those of us that actually hold down jobs that a certain amount of criminal and violent behavior is natural and not to be punished too severely) that the badguys have found themselves free to shoot innocent people on the streets and kill them and have the chief of police defend them on TV. Thats obviously a situation that needs adjusting.

Interestingly enough while police weapons are designed and chosen to do the maximum damage, the rifles that are used by the military are designed to do just the opposite. A nice jacketed round that passes cleanly though the enemy soldier without killing him as wounding one of them takes several out of the fight to carry the wounded back to an aid station. If you just kill them you only take one guy out of the fight for each hit.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Glass said:
Illegal drugs like PCP and meth do exist and some people go nuts after choosing to use it. Now should I let some guy beat me to death just because he is unarmed? The courts (via case law) have said repeatedly that I do not.
Good point. I heard that an "unarmed" person on something like PCP has superhuman strength and extremely fast reflexes. In short, they might as well be armed. Regardless, an officer must make a snap judgement about what does and does not represent a threat. Get it wrong and they may not come home again. Sometimes they kill an innocent person by mistake but I suppose that's the price you pay. I'm tired of seeing the police castigated by the media every time they do things like shoot some kid holding what is later determined to be a fake gun. Fact is the police don't have the luxury of assuming that a threat which looks life-threatening may not be. If I were an officer in this situation I'd have done the exact same thing, probably even aiming for the head if I was close enough to ensure hitting the target, and I'd shoot a 5-year old pointing anything looking like a real gun at me in a heartbeat as well. As James S pointed out, if you're stupid enough to do something that an officer perceives as life-threatening, then don't expect to live too long.

Frankly, I'm surprised the police don't kill a lot more people than they do given the snap judgements they need to make on a daily basis.

James S said:
Take my own local police department who are so concerned about insulting the sensibilities of the poorer members of this city (after all they are poor because the system has failed them and they are so downtrodden and oppressed by those of us that actually hold down jobs that a certain amount of criminal and violent behavior is natural and not to be punished too severely) that the badguys have found themselves free to shoot innocent people on the streets and kill them and have the chief of police defend them on TV. Thats obviously a situation that needs adjusting.
I might offer a solution here. If these politicians insist on catering to the idiots who insist that the police should fire to maim, then perhaps just pull the police out of these neighborhoods entirely rather than force them to act in such a manner as to endanger their own lives. After that fence off the neighborhood to keep all the garbage in, and let them all kill other with impunity. When it's all done, send some developers to turn the formerly depressed neighborhood into a decent place to live. As a bonus the state will save on jail plus court costs for all the thugs, and welfare for all the poor who get killed in the cross fire. It's as good a solution as any I've heard from the mouths of some of these brain-dead politicians.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
I might offer a solution here. If these politicians insist on catering to the idiots who insist that the police should fire to maim, then perhaps just pull the police out of these neighborhoods entirely rather than force them to act in such a manner as to endanger their own lives. After that fence off the neighborhood to keep all the garbage in, and let them all kill other with impunity. When it's all done, send some developers to turn the formerly depressed neighborhood into a decent place to live. As a bonus the state will save on jail plus court costs for all the thugs, and welfare for all the poor who get killed in the cross fire. It's as good a solution as any I've heard from the mouths of some of these brain-dead politicians.

heh, sounds like a decent solution to me, assuming that everyone there is a thug which they aren't... but something is going to change here now. I fully expect the police chief or whatever that guy on TV was to loose his job as most recently the innocent shot and killed on the street was the daughter of one of the local politicians. And people in general are outraged, both at that and at the police reaction to it when they have known for some time that people are taking pot shots at people just walking down the street after dark and done nothing about it at all. It doesn't help that in this particular situation the police chief and the girl being killed are of significantly differing skin tones which always makes deciding who's fault something is more complicated politically. This was weeks ago now and the police haven't done anything but issue statements about how they dont have to do anything because there is no problem.

I dont think the current administration is going to hold on to their jobs for long as things continue to get more interesting around here.
 

Wolfen

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
1,363
Location
Midwest
A young man is fighting for his life. With all due respect for the members here can we knock off the Monday morning quarterbacking?
 

KC2IXE

Flashaholic*
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
2,237
Location
New York City
Wolfen said:
A young man is fighting for his life. With all due respect for the members here can we knock off the Monday morning quarterbacking?

No more - I saw a report that he passed on this AM -

Personally, I think the BIG mistake here was he officer going out getting VERY drunk (he was more than .16 when they got him to the hosiptal), while carrying.

What do they say - guns and alchohol don't mix? That includes for police officers

Still, a real shame it happened
 

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
Glass said:
What if ...................................? What if ............................

Glass said:
I love this state but it is one of the most "hug-a-thug" states out there.

The "what if" scenarios can be carried to extreme. When the people of a state start finding police shootings common place, such as is the situation in Oregon (I don't know about the rest of the country) and it seems a lion's share of them being "what if's" that prove to be false assumption, it's time for that state to reconsider to what degree the acceptable training is reasonable. No state wants their officers or the public unduly faced with life and death hazards. Still, there needs to be a balance that doesn't yield dead citizens as victims of over emphasized "what-ifs".

Being a citizen of Oregon, I also become concerned about our officers that adapt such a bitter and angry-young-man-attitude of calling the state he works for a "hug-a-thug" state.

When there is a shooting, and an unprecedented hiring of an expert witness to sway the grand jury into accepting the shooting as a result of the training, then the state is within it's rights to reevaluate the training, ethics of the departments, and attitudes of it's officers. Hug-a-thug citizens, indeed.
 

markdi

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,403
Location
Portland Oregon
seems to me that there was no comunication at all between the off duty cop and the police who shot him.

kinda scary
 

Glass

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
65
Location
Oregon, USA
"When the people of a state start finding police shootings common place, such as is the situation in Oregon (I don't know about the rest of the country)"

According to the CDC, less than 400 people were killed by police in a nation of over 250 million. I also am unsure of where Oregon ranks but I wholeheartedly believe that we're not that high on the list.

"Being a citizen of Oregon, I also become concerned about our officers that adapt such a bitter and angry-young-man-attitude of calling the state he works for a "hug-a-thug" state."

I was not referring to the people of Oregon with the "hug-a-thug" comment but to the legislature which has failed to show any real leadership in addressing the rising violent crime here. They have failed the people who elected them (you and I) and they have failed future generations.

I am angry and you should be too that our DAs and courts have forgotten who they represent: the people of Oregon. For every property crime or violent crime there is a person who had their life interrupted or destroyed by the actions of another. That is why I chose this career, I want to lock those evil people up and try to prevent it from happening again.

"When there is a shooting, and an unprecedented hiring of an expert witness to sway the grand jury into accepting the shooting as a result of the training, then the state is within it's rights to reevaluate the training, ethics of the departments, and attitudes of it's officers. "

The bringing in of "experts" is not unprecedented at all but has been commonplace for quite some time.

Also, unlike a trial, a grand jury proceeding is designed to interject some common sense into the process. Each citizen member of the grand jury can ask you whatever questions they want. There is no judge there to referee and make them mind their p's and q's. I have had members come after me with some very aggressive questions about how I searched a guy. It is not that easy to sway them...

"seems to me that there was no comunication at all between the off duty cop and the police who shot him.
kinda scary"


I couldn't agree more. Again, this is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved and truly is a nightmare. I pray that everyone involved can find some closure and healing after this.

With respect and regards,
Patrick
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
This is a sad incident indeed, for all involved. I'm also in OR, and I don't think police here are "trigger-happy" at all. Some local PD's operate under really high standards and officers receive as much training as possible.

I respectfully suggest everyone to take a Citizen's Police class, or sign up for a ride-along with your local police department. It is a real eye-opener; more "concerned citizens" should do this instead of pretending to be experts from the sidelines. It's really easy to second-guess police officer's actions, especially if you don't understand at all the environment they are exposed to, day-in-day-out. Friday and Saturday nights are the most "fun" :green:

I come from a LEO family, and am proud of the work they do, and I'm thankful they can use certain levels of force so they (and, really, all of us around them) can go back home safely every day. (Thank you, Glass, an other LEO's 'round here.)
 

Skyclad01

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
283
Location
AZ.
I just saw the video of it on the news, and there was nothing friendly about it at all. The cop shot him 3 times from point blank range with no warning for him to "stay on the ground" or "dont move" let alone any verbal commands at all from the officer. (At least I didnt hear any - ill have to try to catch it again on the news)
 

offroadcmpr

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
810
Location
CA
As I understand it, the cop had his gun pointed at a person that he was trying to arrest. The other cop that shot him, only saw one guy pointing a gun at another guy. In the time that it would take to say "stay on the ground", the guy on the ground could have been shot several times.

There was no luxury of waiting to see what was happening.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
And to add to the confusion I heard on the news the lawyer of one of the suspects claims his client was trying to subdue the officer because the officer was drunk and may have been about to go postal. I honestly don't know what to believe at this point. If true this adds an interesting dimension to this story. If false then we have a lawyer sinking to a new low trying to defend his client.
 
Top