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

[ToddG]

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 ) 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]

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?

[John Ralston]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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:

1. Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
2. 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]

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:

1. Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
2. 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:

1. Determine whether lethal force is reasonable and/or necessary.
2. 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]

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]

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!