Verbal aggression at gunpoint

[StrikerFire]

First, good use of pedagogical in a sentence..... It was the word of the week dropped often in my wife's teaching credential degree, and makes me laugh every time I see it as it is a beloved academia word.

One of the things I try to tell folks, is that one thing heavily experienced street LEO's bring to the table is dealing with crazy, doped up, drunk, angry, and just plain mean (or a combination of the whole group) on a very regular basis. It is often dismissed as "cop stuff" and not applicable to regular folks. I am at the "whatever" point and lost interest in trying to convince folks that it is one group who really knows your criminal well. Folks seem more interested in "Civilian response to active shooters" and Long range sniping for the zombie apocalypse.
Yep, I think there would be a huge benefit to maybe setting a couple scenarios up at Tom's conference for folks to sit and watch a group of folks handle some scenarios. As you said, FTO training for civilians. Part of being a good FTO was bein able to show your trainee's how to deal with things they had never seen, or knew existed before. The problem was often they were wholly unprepared for what they were seeing. Often, the level of crazy, and the level of violence often needed to deal with it was unnerving and not how it was on TV.
I think you are on to something, it is just how to pull it off. Another issue is also going to be what works for so,e may not translate to others. I know that both Wayne and I have both found very good success with the fence hands and "I can't help you, get away". That may not be as effective for someone who is not shopping in the full size clothes department. Also, things like tone and verbalization will also also be different, and not everybody can switch on a tone that really conveys what they want or a true seriousness.

This.

Would you consider offering a module on this through HITS and/or privately.

[David Pennington]

You would be surprised at the crap some people will pull while at gunpoint, particularly if they do not believe the gun-holder will actually shoot them. Also, remember that the people you place at gunpoint are almost always A. Drunk B. Drugged C. Crazy as a shit-house rat or D. All of the above. Expecting rational behavior is a mistake. If they were rational you probably wouldn't be pointing a gun at them.

Spot on.

[ford.304]

On the subject of "gaming" scenarios -- with the spread of body cameras/cell phone cameras would we have a better time with a curated list of videos of officers handling real situations well/poorly? I feel like some debriefings on videos like that from one of our experts could be an absolutely amazing resource.

[GRV]

On the subject of "gaming" scenarios -- with the spread of body cameras/cell phone cameras would we have a better time with a curated list of videos of officers handling real situations well/poorly? I feel like some debriefings on videos like that from one of our experts could be an absolutely amazing resource.

Agreed. The recent video documenting our resident deputy sheriff sticks in my mind as the best example of the sorts of videos I'd like to see more of.

[TCinVA]

So here's a real story where many of the things mentioned in this thread come into play:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...503-story.html

It is a setup almost like one of Craig's ELL scenarios:

Woman comes into a store. She's been shot. She's screaming for help.

Good Samaritan isn't carrying his gun (fail number one, of course) and decides to go get it. He confronts the shooter, apparently as shooter is trying to leave. From what I understand from listening to others talk about this, shooter gets out of his truck, closes distance on the Good Samaritan, makes some level of physical contact and then fires a fatal shot into Good Samaritan's head.

As for more footage, here's some of a shooting more local to me:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=743_1462399784

Lots of clear verbal warnings, but the drunk college student (who had already threatened someone with the gun) decided to continue being a dumbass.

[HCM]

So here's a real story where many of the things mentioned in this thread come into play:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...503-story.html

It is a setup almost like one of Craig's ELL scenarios:

Woman comes into a store. She's been shot. She's screaming for help.

Good Samaritan isn't carrying his gun (fail number one, of course) and decides to go get it. He confronts the shooter, apparently as shooter is trying to leave. From what I understand from listening to others talk about this, shooter gets out of his truck, closes distance on the Good Samaritan, makes some level of physical contact and then fires a fatal shot into Good Samaritan's head.

I found this telling:

According to his arrest affidavit, Bradden was driving away from the scene when he called and confessed to several Army supervisors at Ford Hood that he had slapped the gun out of Antell's hand and shot him, reported TV station Fox 4 News.

[TCinVA]

I found this telling:

Indeed. Many mistakes were made...but I think those are common mistakes that many would make. This was something of an ambiguous situation, at least when the would-be Good Samaritan got involved.

I think a lot of people are just like this. Staying out of a situation is certainly a legit strategy and a safe one, but how many people are going to keep themselves out of a situation where there is a bloody gunshot victim screaming for help?

Under unfamiliar stress it's easy to fixate on a course of action suggested by our amygdala and then second guess it a few seconds in. And a lot of people, it seems to me, expect pointing a gun at somebody to be effective.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

[Mr_White]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

No I think that's exactly right. People need to get ALL THE WAY OUT or ALL THE WAY IN - and be ready to switch when the situation dictates. We can 'become entangled' into the situation too, but a lot of people unconsciously put themselves half-in, half-out, and that is a very bad place to be in any conflict.

[HCM]

Indeed. Many mistakes were made...but I think those are common mistakes that many would make. This was something of an ambiguous situation, at least when the would-be Good Samaritan got involved.

I think a lot of people are just like this. Staying out of a situation is certainly a legit strategy and a safe one, but how many people are going to keep themselves out of a situation where there is a bloody gunshot victim screaming for help?

Under unfamiliar stress it's easy to fixate on a course of action suggested by our amygdala and then second guess it a few seconds in. And a lot of people, it seems to me, expect pointing a gun at somebody to be effective.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

Agreed with the need for decisiveness - all the way in or all the way out.

Another issue is closing with suspects while confronting them due to the illusion of control. It's is common, even among cops who should know better.

[GRV]

[snip]

To be honest, it's situations and videos like this that I've becoming increasingly less interested in spending my exposure time on. As someone with little to no experience, I find it too difficult to pick apart which elements are performed well and which were bad ideas, unless an experienced person gives detailed commentary. Over time, I'm slowly growing to be able to discern that difference, I think, but it's not from watching these videos.

Moreover, I think we too often create false dichotomies with these ELL-like situations. The language of this thread is already tending towards "get involved" vs. "don't get involved". A totally reasonable response would have been to let this guy drive off, remember the plate, and then go care for the actual victim. Is that "get involved" or is it "don't get involved"? I'd say it has elements of both; it simply doesn't fit into the dichotomy. That isn't intended to be a MMQB, but rather to point out that the solution space for these problems is far richer than the binary one that tends to get assigned to them in these sorts of discussions. (I don't mean to pick on anyone with that comment.)

Personally, I have found that these videos and the discussions and literature surrounding them suggest precisely these sorts of binary "switch" modes of problem solving, which I have come to believe are inherently fraught with peril. Instead, it seems to me that these interactions are best managed in a very organic, human, and yet carefully analytical way, which does not seem to be well represented in the well-defined, pigeon-holed type discourse that I have come to associate with online discussions of use of force.