Monterey Park, CA OIS incident captured on video by idiotic bystanders [Archive]

jmjames

01-25-2012, 12:59 AM

Hard to imagine what folks who would say that think they'd do in the same situation.

Sarcasm mode: activated.

I *know* what I'd do. I'd shoot the pipe bender out of his hand... not "shoot the hand", just shoot the tool itself to make it go flying, and once he realized my pistol prowess he'd immediately surrender. While shooting one-handing while holding back a dog. If that failed to do the trick, I'd shoot him in the leg. But only in a really fleshy part of the leg, not like the knee cap or anything that would cause permanent damage. And definitely not near any arteries either. That always works. Hopefully, Doc can provide me with some ballistics data showing what the most humane load is that will convince an attacker to cease their attack, without actually causing permanent harm or emotional trauma, let alone death.

Anyone who would react any differently is simply a bloodthirsty animal.

Sarcasm mode: deactivated.

J.Ja

Shellback

01-25-2012, 01:06 AM

From what I saw at about :42 in the video he takes a grip with both hands, winds up and appears to start his swing at the officer. The K9 officer took the appropriate action to protect a fellow citizen and police officer from being seriously injured or killed. Good shoot and good looking Mal. Only negative I can think of is 1 wild round that broke a sign and landed on a lady, not seriously injured though.

Article here: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8515794

jmjames

01-25-2012, 01:16 AM

10 rounds fired to stop the criminal--seems like a good reason to consider carrying a duty pistol with a large magazine capacity--also a great illustration of why it is best to grab a long gun WHENEVER there is the potential for a violent encounter. Also demonstrates why folks might want to practice shooting one handed...

Something to note in the news article IRISH linked to, the suspect did not even die on the spot, he died much later. So while 9 rounds certainly stopped the attacker, it was not an "instant kill", which reinforces your point about weapon choice and capacity.

J.Ja

DocGKR

01-25-2012, 02:09 AM

Shellback

01-25-2012, 02:20 AM

I am utterly astounded by the many comments made by the public in regards to this OIS incident... The evidence justifying the officers actions is unequivocal and clear on the video, yet many members of the public fail to see the truth...

The vast majority of the population are feeble minded simpletons bordering on mild retardation at best. They also think everything should happen the way it does in the movies and somehow the officer should've magically shot the crowbar out of the bullet sponge's hand and then he should've been ushered into the closest psychiatrist's office for help dealing with his childhood issues that tragically led to this encounter.

As for me, there is zero doubt in my mind that the officers did the right thing.

167

01-25-2012, 02:25 AM

Good real life example of why you need a back up officer ready to go with lethal force on Taser deployments if available.

TGS

01-25-2012, 02:44 AM

The suspect was still on his feet holding the weapon after the first 5 rounds were fired; the second officer then fired an additional 5 rounds to end the conflict. At least one round missed.

I am utterly astounded by the many comments made by the public in regards to this OIS incident. The suspect chose to initiate the conflict by violently vandalizing the restaurant and terrifying patrons and employees such that they felt compelled to flee for safety and request police intervention. Upon arrival of LE, the suspect willfully failed to obey repeated commands issued by officers, was NOT incapacitated by a Taser hit, then attempted to assault an officer using a deadly weapon, was shot by one officer, yet still did not drop his weapon, thus was shot again by another officer. The evidence justifying the officers actions is unequivocal and clear on the video, yet many members of the public fail to see the truth...

As to the second string of fire, I guess I'll have to watch it again. From what I saw, it looked like the guy was already down when the second string ran out. I guess I was mistaken, maybe it buffered/froze and caused a difference in the sync of the sound vs video.

As to youtube comments, yeah, that's how it goes. Best not to read them.

I remember when this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubsABVvo9U)video of a wild OIS hit the internet (skip to 3:30). The comments about the police were just as bad. It was actually on a car enthusiast forum where I saw it, and people were saying the usual stuff, while the other half of the forum told them to STFU/man up/high five for the cop.

What I figured out is it comes down to exactly what Grossman and Christensen talk about in On Combat (http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=pd_sim_b_1). 90% of society is so abhorrent of violence that they possess a massive denial complex about it...it's an incredibly perverted level of ignorance. As an example, think of how school kids will still get punished by the school if they actually fight back when physically accosted by a bully, simply because violence is bad.

When society sees violence with their own eyes, it disgusts them and they are revolted. Regardless of whether it was done to protect society instead of attack it, they still hold the pure act of violence as a crime. When they don't see the human factor and terror of tearing life and limb with their own eyes, they will justify violence if done to protect society....but if they actually witness it, their emotions take over and the ability to use reason and logic to justify violence disappears. Now, as the authors put it, the sheepdog is just as evil and persecuted as the wolf, even though he did it to protect what is good.

There's a lot of bogus stuff in On Combat and On Killing, but I think that was one of the best thoughts to take from the book.

Kyle Reese

01-25-2012, 03:57 AM

The vast majority of the population are feeble minded simpletons bordering on mild retardation at best. They also think everything should happen the way it does in the movies and somehow the officer should've magically shot the crowbar out of the bullet sponge's hand and then he should've been ushered into the closest psychiatrist's office for help dealing with his childhood issues that tragically led to this encounter.

As for me, there is zero doubt in my mind that the officers did the right thing.

Agreed 100%

MattInFla

01-25-2012, 06:19 AM

One of the things that struck me about this video was when the officer with the taser went to re-holster it. He takes his eyes off the suspect for several seconds and places himself in a really bad position there.

I wonder if this is an example of reverting to ingrained behaviors under stress. I'd wager that in training, when taser fails to stop the practice is to re-holster rather than drop the expensive taser device. So on the street, that's what he did. It could hav cost him dearly, given than he was some 6 or 8 feet from an armed subject.

LittleLebowski

01-25-2012, 07:07 AM

Good shoot.

Glad everybody's OK, including the dog but I suspect the dog would have done well had he been released.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cukf9u_oxjo

TCinVA

01-25-2012, 07:17 AM

yet many members of the public fail to see the truth...

Many members of the public are idiots.

In a classroom one time I once heard a 20 year old coed who had absolutely no experience with personal violence complaining about the injustice of an incident where a police officer had fired on a mentally deranged man armed with a knife. "They had guns and all he had was a knife!"

"Sweetheart, this may come as a complete shock to you, but violent interaction with a nut has precisely zero resemblance to a game of rock, scissors, paper."

...not that it made any difference. Like many in our society she didn't let a complete lack of understanding on the topic and no familiarity with even the basic principles of the problem interfere with her deep-rooted conviction that she was right.

Sparks2112

01-25-2012, 07:17 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY5ioBvrYIg

10 rounds fired to stop the criminal--seems like a good reason to consider carrying a duty pistol with a large magazine capacity--also a great illustration of why it is best to grab a long gun WHENEVER there is the potential for a violent encounter. Also demonstrates why folks might want to practice shooting one handed...

You don't happen to know what platform and load they were using do you?

Nephrology

01-25-2012, 08:40 AM

You don't happen to know what platform and load they were using do you?

Honestly I don't think that the way the shooting played outwould be different between calibers, and frankly choice of duty pistol would do zilch to influence the lethality of their hits.

Edit: Google says Glock 22s. My statement stays the same. I don't think a Glock 21 would've made him drop any faster.

Sparks2112

01-25-2012, 08:52 AM

Honestly I don't think that the way the shooting played outwould be different between calibers, and frankly choice of duty pistol would do zilch to influence the lethality of their hits.

Edit: Google says Glock 22s. My statement stays the same. I don't think a Glock 21 would've made him drop any faster.

Oh I know. I was going to use this as an example as to why the .40 - .45 is not a death ray. People ask me all the time why I espouse high capacity guns. Their argument is usually "if you can't get it done in 5..." blah blah blah.

Nephrology

01-25-2012, 08:59 AM

Oh I know. I was going to use this as an example as to why the .40 - .45 is not a death ray. People ask me all the time why I espouse high capacity guns. Their argument is usually "if you can't get it done in 5..." blah blah blah.

Fair enough. .40cal 1 stop shots disproven!

ToddG

01-25-2012, 10:37 AM

From what I saw, it looked like the guy was already down when the second string ran out.

I quoted this because I think it's one of those "our own worst enemy" issues that should be addressed.

First, at least as I saw, there's no way to tell the condition of the criminal as he falls. Did he still have the crowbar in his hand? If he's still armed and even theoretically capable of swinging (or throwing) the weapon to cause serious harm, it's perfectly legitimate to shoot him some more.

Second, even if we assume the crowbar was dropped somewhere during the second string of five shots, how long did that entire string of fire take from start to stop? Probably about a second. The officer's finger was literally moving the trigger faster than his brain could process information. Thus it's perfectly understandable that he may have fired a round or even two after the threat was neutralized. Sure, if we go through the video one frame at a time it's easy to call "STOP!" on a dime. Once we know approximately when the threat will be neutralized it's easy to watch for it and judge the stopping point, as well. But the officer in question had absolutely no idea when or even if the threat would be neutralized and therefore had to make his assessment while still in the process of shooting. In other words, he had to shoot and assess simultaneously.

Have a friend who's never seen the video watch it from the beginning. Tell him that shooting will begin and he needs to hit the mouse button to stop the video when he thinks the threat is neutralized. Does he stop too soon? He just endangered everyone. Does he stop only after one or more extra shots fire? I'll bet so.

To me, the video demonstrates the value of high capacity pistols. No matter what caliber you're strapping, it's going to take a certain amount of time to affect the BG. The officer in this case essentially "stun locked" the BG (it's a computer gaming term... trust me, it's applicable here :cool:) through volume of fire, keeping him from attacking for a couple of seconds until all those little lead pills had a chance to take effect.

TGS

01-25-2012, 10:53 AM

First, at least as I saw, there's no way to tell the condition of the criminal as he falls. Did he still have the crowbar in his hand? If he's still armed and even theoretically capable of swinging (or throwing) the weapon to cause serious harm, it's perfectly legitimate to shoot him some more.

I agree with everything else you said, but how is opportunity, ability and jeopardy present together with a dude laying on the ground with a crowbar? :confused:

John Ralston

01-25-2012, 11:11 AM

I agree with everything else you said, but how is opportunity, ability and jeopardy present together with a dude laying on the ground with a crowbar? :confused:

They are in an active shooting...OAJ doesn't apply at that point - it was there when he tried to swing the crow bar and it ended when they stopped firing. You shoot until the threat is gone - period. If I guy is still on his feet after 5 rounds, I don't think dumping another 5 in him is out of the question at all.

I am not an LEO, but I am not even sure that OAJ applies to an officer in the execution of his duty to protect the people from a threat (even a perceived one).

TGS

01-25-2012, 11:15 AM

They are in an active shooting...OAJ doesn't apply at that point - it was there when he tried to swing the crow bar and it ended when they stopped firing. You shoot until the threat is gone - period. If I guy is still on his feet after 5 rounds, I don't think dumping another 5 in him is out of the question at all.

Huh.

My own personal experience with blunt objects would have lead me to believe that a dude laying on the ground with a blunt object needn't be shot since he can't realistically threaten my life or limb (i.e., the threat is gone), no matter how many straw man scenarios you can come up with. If I ended up shooting someone who was on the ground with a blunt object, I think my asshole would pucker up mighty tight afterwards in an "oh shit....." moment.

I guess I would view a dude with a blunt object falling to the ground after being shot as a threat that has been stopped. He reacted to your bullets just like you wanted him to.

derekb

01-25-2012, 11:23 AM

I guess I would view a dude with a blunt object falling to the ground after being shot as a threat that has been stopped. He reacted to your bullets just like you wanted him to.

But when will you stop shooting to process that? I can't imagine someone's internal monologue is going to sound like this: "One, two, three, okay he's stumbling, four, five and he's down I'm done."

I know mine would not be reasoned. It'd probably consist of 'I hope he doesn't hit me with that thing' over and over again.

TGS

01-25-2012, 11:27 AM

But when will you stop shooting to process that? I can't imagine someone's internal monologue is going to sound like this: "One, two, three, okay he's stumbling, four, five and he's down I'm done."

I know mine would not be reasoned. It'd probably consist of 'I hope he doesn't hit me with that thing' over and over again.

I think if you read what I wrote, I didn't disagree with this notion. Nor is it the point of my inquiry.

I agree with everything else you said, but how is....

ToddG

01-25-2012, 11:44 AM

I agree with everything else you said, but how is opportunity, ability and jeopardy present together with a dude laying on the ground with a crowbar? :confused:

Was he lying on the ground, unmoving, before the final shot was fired? Or more to the point, was he lying on the ground, unmoving, soon enough for the officer to notice and stop firing? Again from my view of the video, it's very hard to see exactly what the BG is doing because there is something blocking my view of his body as he falls.

As I said in my original post, this is where we become our own worst enemy. By putting a millisecond by millisecond burden on the officer to make a complex "AOJ" assessment we ignore the reality of how human brains work under stress. The law doesn't say you have to stop when he might be finished or when he might not get back up or he might not be able to throw that crowbar at you.

There are certainly jurisdictions where that millisecond by millisecond standard has cropped up... particularly on the west coast post-Rodney King. Which simply proves what happens when dirty politics create bad law. On the other side of the coin, I've worked with a department in Utah that has an actual formal opinion letter from the state attorney saying that deputies are authorized to shoot someone to the ground and keep shooting until the deputy is confident the threat has ceased. They had a deputy shot by a guy who'd been put down but not completely out years ago because they were following a "stop and assess" TTP. Now their process is more along the lines of:

Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
Administer lethal force until threat is obviously incapacitated or dead.

They don't fire a couple of rounds, ask if he's ok, ask if he'd like to give up, etc., and then decide whether to shoot some more. There's a bright line that triggers use of lethal force and once it's lawfully been triggered they're authorized to engage until it is patently obvious that it's had the needed effect.

TGS

01-25-2012, 12:02 PM

Was he lying on the ground, unmoving, before the final shot was fired? Or more to the point, was he lying on the ground, unmoving, soon enough for the officer to notice and stop firing? Again from my view of the video, it's very hard to see exactly what the BG is doing because there is something blocking my view of his body as he falls.

I guess what my brain is thinking is that it doesn't matter if he stopped moving. The way I'm viewing it is that he hasn't the ability to cause grievous bodily harm anymore, so the threat is over.

As I said in my original post, this is where we become our own worst enemy. By putting a millisecond by millisecond burden on the officer to make a complex "AOJ" assessment we ignore the reality of how human brains work under stress. The law doesn't say you have to stop when he might be finished or when he might not get back up or he might not be able to throw that crowbar at you.

There are certainly jurisdictions where that millisecond by millisecond standard has cropped up... particularly on the west coast post-Rodney King. Which simply proves what happens when dirty politics create bad law. On the other side of the coin, I've worked with a department in Utah that has an actual formal opinion letter from the state attorney saying that deputies are authorized to shoot someone to the ground and keep shooting until the deputy is confident the threat has ceased. They had a deputy shot by a guy who'd been put down but not completely out years ago because they were following a "stop and assess" TTP. Now their process is more along the lines of:

Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
Administer lethal force until threat is obviously incapacitated or dead.

They don't fire a couple of rounds, ask if he's ok, ask if he'd like to give up, etc., and then decide whether to shoot some more. There's a bright line that triggers use of lethal force and once it's lawfully been triggered they're authorized to engage until it is patently obvious that it's had the needed effect.

Great stuff, thanks. The way I was taught is that you can't just keep shooting because the guy did something in the past. There has to be a current threat. I agree that the millisecond burden needs to be taken into account, and that's why I don't think the cop should have any repercussions against him for the second string of fire. Still, that's an excuse by acting as a reasonable man operating within the capacity of the human brain, and not a justification which in my mind are two different things.

Now their process is more along the lines of:

Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
Administer lethal force until threat is obviously incapacitated or dead.

On this specifically, incapacitated as in the medical sense of the persons being(ex: he passes out), or incapacitated in that the threat is incapacitated (ex: a guy with a bat goes to the ground and now has virtually nill force projection, though he's still conscious)?

Thanks!

SecondsCount

01-25-2012, 12:12 PM

I have no problem with the police using deadly force in this instance. They tried the taser, had a dog, and guns were drawn. Instead of complying he threatened an officer with deadly force which as expected drew gunfire. Sure they could have handled this a couple different ways that may have saved the perps life but that isn't how it works. The life of the good guy is what counts and when it is threatened, all means necessary to protect that life needs to be taken.

My concern is that 10 shots were fired but it sounds like not every round hit the target and there was collateral damage. Maybe if half of the shots fired were better placed then ten would not have been needed. I realize that shot placement is tough in the heat of battle when the target is not a sheet of paper fixed to a stand but the person pulling the trigger is still responsible for every shot.

TGS

01-25-2012, 12:23 PM

My concern is that 10 shots were fired but it sounds like not every round hit the target and there was collateral damage. Maybe if half of the shots fired were better placed then ten would not have been needed. I realize that shot placement is tough in the heat of battle when the target is not a sheet of paper fixed to a stand but the person pulling the trigger is still responsible for every shot.

Wouldn't be nice if tax money came out of nowhere to fund more training for LEO's.......

With that, I'm off to the range!

Zhurdan

01-25-2012, 12:37 PM

I have no problem with the police using deadly force in this instance. They tried the taser, had a dog, and guns were drawn. Instead of complying he threatened an officer with deadly force which as expected drew gunfire. Sure they could have handled this a couple different ways that may have saved the perps life but that isn't how it works. The life of the good guy is what counts and when it is threatened, all means necessary to protect that life needs to be taken.

Who's to say that it was the officers decision? Kinda looks like the guy wanted them to open fire. Why do I think that?

1. Destroyed property to attract enough attention to warrant the police to be called.
2. Refused commands of the police officers.
3. He was obviously outnumbered and out gunned. (no pun intended)
4. He could easily see they had weapons yet turned to strike the officer anyways.

Hopefully more information will surface, but in my opinion, I think the officers were doomed to shoot this idiot from the get go. Not of their liking but of the perp's.

Zhurdan

01-25-2012, 12:45 PM

Great stuff, thanks. The way I was taught is that you can't just keep shooting because the guy did something in the past. There has to be a current threat. I agree that the millisecond burden needs to be taken into account, and that's why I don't think the cop should have any repercussions against him for the second string of fire. Still, that's an excuse by acting as a reasonable man operating within the capacity of the human brain, and not a justification which in my mind are two different things.

Thanks!

Curious, after watching the video a couple of times, it seems as though the officer who fired first (he already had his gun out) did so when the threat made his 'move'. It kinda looks like the other officer was moving and drawing as the shots fired. Do you think that the reflex to shoot was because he was already in process of drawing his weapon because he'd made the decision that shooting was necessary?

Not trying to pick this apart too much, but the time between the first officers shots and the second officers shots appears to be the time required for him to draw his weapon.

JRL

01-25-2012, 12:55 PM

Observations:

1. Both officers appear to be well inside of 21 feet (I assume the rule applies to items other than knives). The initial aggression takes place against the officer who is currently only holding an apparently ineffective non-lethal weapon, rather than the officer with a dog and a gun, (the one in a less vulnerable position, arguably).

2. I can't tell where the second string of fire comes from, the sound is different and I don't see the recoil or blast from the first officer's weapon, and he looks around almost immediately after the string ends. I suspect this string came from the second officer, who can be seen drawing his weapon during the first string, but it is nearly impossible to tell. Both strings are exactly five rounds. Everything happens in under 4 seconds. The effect of the first string can be seen almost immediately.

3. Later in the video the "backstop" can be seen to be a fairly busy street.

In a perfect world shots would have ceased the moment the suspect began to fall, (we can't tell they didn't) and some thought would have been given to what is behind the possible target before shots were needed.
Expecting perfection in such a situation is just silly, and under the circumstances, it turned out just fine. Could it have turned out better? Marginally. Could it have turned out worse? Much.

On a lighter note, I appreciate the reference to stunlocking (be it psychological or physical), so I'll just leave this here...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/3/19/cbf2987e-d1ff-44f2-bf1b-9cf9ce6456f9.jpg

TCinVA

01-25-2012, 01:42 PM

Their argument is usually "if you can't get it done in 5..." blah blah blah.

That's code for "I've never had to actually solve a shooting problem with a J frame before."

DocGKR

01-25-2012, 02:24 PM

According to published NYPD SOP-9 data (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf), NYPD hit ratio by officers against perpetrators in 2000 was 12.3% of shots fired and in 2001 13.5% of shots fired. On the other hand, the article states Portland PD hit with 43% of shots fired at adversaries from 1984-1992, while Metro-Dade had hit ratios ranging from 15.4-30% from 1988-1994, and Baltimore reported a 49% average hit ratio from 1989-2002. In the current shooting incident, the officers appeared to hit at a better rate than is typical for LE--we should be applauding their results, not criticizing them.

Note in the screen capture below taken after the first K9 officer has fired and right at the moment the second officer begins shooting, the suspect can clearly be seen standing upright, slightly turned and according to witnesses, had not dropped his weapon. The second officer had to make a split second decision--was the suspect going to attack nearby bystanders, turn to continue his attack on officers, or try to escape. The key thing is that he had neither surrendered nor been incapacitated at the start of the second string of fire.

ToddG

01-25-2012, 02:25 PM

I guess what my brain is thinking is that it doesn't matter if he stopped moving. The way I'm viewing it is that he hasn't the ability to cause grievous bodily harm anymore, so the threat is over.

I'm not a doctor. Unless someone I trust has gone over and done an eyeball thump or similar dead-check on the guy, "stopped moving" is as close as I can get to "no longer a threat."

I appreciate that there is a difference between having a gun still in his hand after he falls and having a crowbar still in his hand after he falls, assuming I am well out of reach of the crowbar and assuming I am able to make an ironclad determination that he lacks the ability to throw the crowbar with enough force to reach me. However, those determinations add further degrees of complexity to my start-shooting/stop-shooting process and thus I am all the more likely to fire an additional round or two after the millisecond that an unbiased outside observer sees him touch the ground.

Ask yourself this: You just shot a guy who was charging at you with a crowbar, and he fell to the ground. You stopped shooting. What movement from him would legitimately elicit more shots fired on your part, in your mind? Be specific. Don't say "if he became a threat," tell me what that means. Don't say "if he started to sit up," tell me exactly how much, how far, etc. he'd have to move which body parts before you'd touch off more rounds.

Great stuff, thanks. The way I was taught is that you can't just keep shooting because the guy did something in the past. There has to be a current threat.

This gets back (again) to the "we're our own worst enemies" thing. The tighter we define "current" threat, the less leeway we can expect from a jury, detective, or our peers. Until BGs start walking around with glowing lights above their heads that turn from green to red when they're no longer dangerous, I'm not required to give the guy the benefit of the doubt after he's already tried to hurt me or someone else. There's a huge difference between shooting someone two minutes after he tried to attack you, and shooting him two seconds after he tried to attack you.

On this specifically, incapacitated as in the medical sense of the persons being(ex: he passes out), or incapacitated in that the threat is incapacitated (ex: a guy with a bat goes to the ground and now has virtually nill force projection, though he's still conscious)?

Once he is clearly no longer physically capable of making good on his earlier effort to cause me or someone else serious bodily harm, given my understanding of just how far some people are able to push themselves when injured. I don't have to assume he's a wimp or craven.

DocGKR

01-25-2012, 03:49 PM

TGS--The suspect was still standing, still had a weapon in his hand, and had not surrendered when the second officer began firing as clearly documented in the photo above.

TGS

01-25-2012, 03:51 PM

Ask yourself this: You just shot a guy who was charging at you with a crowbar, and he fell to the ground. You stopped shooting. What movement from him would legitimately elicit more shots fired on your part, in your mind? Be specific. Don't say "if he became a threat," tell me what that means. Don't say "if he started to sit up," tell me exactly how much, how far, etc. he'd have to move which body parts before you'd touch off more rounds.

Exactly:

If he was within striking distance and begun the stroke of a swing with more fervor than the walking dead.

I personally wouldn't feel the need to shoot someone who's on the ground and swung a crowbar at my leg with an obvious lack of vigor. Some might say that involves too much cognition for the heat of the moment judgement, but I think based off my own personal experience with blunt trauma I'm a fair judge of what needs killin' and what don't:
514

TGS

01-25-2012, 03:52 PM

TGS--The suspect was still standing, still had a weapon in his hand, and had not surrendered when the second officer began firing as clearly documented in the photo above.

DocGKR,

Thanks for doing the legwork and making that clear for me, mucho gracias.

DocGKR

01-25-2012, 03:57 PM

Wow...I want to suture that up!

What happened to cause that injury?

LittleLebowski

01-25-2012, 04:01 PM

Exactly:

If he was within striking distance and begun the stroke of a swing with more fervor than the walking dead.

I personally wouldn't feel the need to shoot someone who's on the ground and swung a crowbar at my leg with an obvious lack of vigor. Some might say that involves too much cognition for the heat of the moment judgement, but I think based off my own personal experience with blunt trauma I'm a fair judge of what needs killin' and what don't:

On paper, I agree with you but I certainly would not penalize the officer on the scene.

ToddG

01-25-2012, 04:08 PM

If he was within striking distance and begun the stroke of a swing with more fervor than the walking dead.

This is where you and I disagree.

If he is within striking distance, has already demonstrated a willingness to do me (or someone else) harm, and has a weapon in hand then he has met all the requirements I care about. I don't need him to continue to demonstrate intent, nor am I required to judge whether he has enough strength left to be dangerous. By definition, the only way you'll know whether he is swinging "with more fervor than the walking dead" is to wait for him to start swinging. By that time, it's too late. If I took a wiffle bat and told you to decide, based on how hard I was swinging, whether you could shoot me or not do you honestly think you could make 100% accurate assessments in time to deliver enough rounds to guarantee that I could not connect?

TGS

01-25-2012, 04:17 PM

Wow...I want to suture that up!

I know, right? I was an EMT once upon a time and thought it was uber cool. The nurses looked at me like I was crazy when I asked for a cell phone picture of it, so I share your enthusiasm. There was blood everywhere, it was pretty cool.

Speaking of sutures, talk about art work. Best suture ever, one continuous suture 31 times over.....I'm kind of upset, I went though all that and the suture was so nice that it healed VERY cleanly. I'd rather have a big badass scar across my head, but it looks like a wrinkle today.

What happened to cause that injury?

What caused it? Blunt trauma from not having Southnarc's ECQC under my belt. I'm unemployed now but am trying to allocate enough money to revisit Virginia this spring for ECQC Culpeper and prevent things like this from happening.

TGS

01-25-2012, 04:19 PM

On paper, I agree with you but I certainly would not penalize the officer on the scene.

Definitely, given the "millisecond burden" (good phrase, Todd) it's more than reasonable for him to have fired......

Especially since Doc cleared up the matter that he was still on his feet.

DocGKR

01-25-2012, 04:20 PM

What "blunt instrument" hit your head?

Since you mention ECQC, I am assuming it was some sort of improvised weapon vice an accidental impact.

On duty or as a civilian?

TGS

01-25-2012, 04:44 PM

given how much I scuba dive, everyone seems to think I got my head to close to a propeller. What really sucked is this happened the weekend before I was going to Kittyhawk to learn hang-gliding, so I never got around to hang-gliding.....

Off-duty, wooden 2x4. The most action I ever saw in the military was exploding hot water pipes inside a barracks while on duty. I really had no idea a forehead bled so much until this happened. It didn't even hurt, it felt more like that numbing sensation when punched in the face, except instead of a flashing momentary sensation it was constant with shock then setting in from blood-loss. No, I wasn't drunk (#1 question from all my marine buddies...).

By any chance, did you get a PM I tried to send you about data on OIS's?

Thanks to everyone for the discussion points.

LittleLebowski

01-25-2012, 07:31 PM

I wonder how a Jimenez .22 would have done in this incident.

Nephrology

01-25-2012, 09:29 PM

I wonder how a Jimenez .22 would have done in this incident.

How bout a judge? :D

BG didn't look too much like a watermelon though!

Mitchell, Esq.

01-25-2012, 09:37 PM

Many members of the public are idiots.

In a classroom one time I once heard a 20 year old coed who had absolutely no experience with personal violence complaining about the injustice of an incident where a police officer had fired on a mentally deranged man armed with a knife. "They had guns and all he had was a knife!"

"Sweetheart, this may come as a complete shock to you, but violent interaction with a nut has precisely zero resemblance to a game of rock, scissors, paper."

...not that it made any difference. Like many in our society she didn't let a complete lack of understanding on the topic and no familiarity with even the basic principles of the problem interfere with her deep-rooted conviction that she was right.

Was she hot?

Mitchell, Esq.

01-25-2012, 09:40 PM

They are in an active shooting...OAJ doesn't apply at that point - it was there when he tried to swing the crow bar and it ended when they stopped firing. You shoot until the threat is gone - period. If I guy is still on his feet after 5 rounds, I don't think dumping another 5 in him is out of the question at all.

I am not an LEO, but I am not even sure that OAJ applies to an officer in the execution of his duty to protect the people from a threat (even a perceived one).

It does apply, but it's within the overall situation, and subject to the mental processing speed of the officer's involved.

If OAJ was present when the shooting started, it's likely that they officer can't stop and assess during the course of the action shot to shot.

Only when he can see a result would reassessment of OAJ be reasonable.

LtDave

01-25-2012, 09:43 PM

What MPPD carries. They were issuing HK USP in .40 as recently as 4-5 yrs ago. But it wouldn't surprise me if Glocks were either optional personal weapons or had replaced the HK as issued weapon. I retired from Alhambra PD which borders them on the north. Alhambra also issues the USP in .40.

I can also attest that there will be limitless numbers of clueless bystanders in either of those cities at all times of the night and day. What is shocking is that the comments were in English, Chinese being the dominant language there nowadays.

RobG

01-25-2012, 10:47 PM

An interesting note, each officer shot five rounds and then assessed the threat. The second officer started the shoot sequence late, from a startled response. It would appear that once he started the draw and shoot program, it played out exactly as done by his partner. I would bet that a quick five shot drill is common to this department’s training program. I would also bet that, once the decision to shoot was made, it would have been a five shot volley regardless of threat’s response. This is a classic example of falling to your training when faced with danger. Well done training department, you equipped your men with the tools to save their lives.

Ed L

01-26-2012, 01:41 AM

I wonder how a Jimenez .22 would have done in this incident.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if he was confronted by a citizen with a .22 he would have taken off running after the first time he was shot. Violent criminals are like that. (insert roll eyes here).

Serious comment: I wasn't able to tell a lot of specifics from watching that video. As well as the distance and being through what seemed like a window with water spots, and having a car in the way, the video ran kind of stop and go and would not let me move around to different parts. I can understand the limitations given the nature of the video, and was able to get the basics of what happened, but that's about it.