LE UOF Video thread

[John Hearne]

(which I thought was humorous...I doubt they have a combined 5 years of actual enforcement/patrol).

That won't stop anyone these days.....

[Erick Gelhaus]

However, the "interview" (3 hour interrogation) with the I/A morons was a clusterfu#*.

<snip>

It's amazing the level of ignorance and ineptitude of policy makers and interpreters.

Having been through post-critical incident interviews, I feel you're frustration. None of mine lasted that long.

Genuinely curious though ... after giving an interview to the investigators, you had to give another one to IA? Contemporaneous to the OIS or later on after the prosecuting attorney cleared you?

[LSP552]

I was involved in a fatal OIS last year involving a suspect that tried to run over me after a pursuit (unbeknownst to me at the time...he was armed with a handgun and AR15, had meth in the vehicle, tested positive for heroin and meth, was wanted by USM Task Force for Meth Trafficking, and had told an informant that he wouldn't go back to prison).

It was a good shoot legally and policy wise (and marksmanship-wise if I say so...7 rnds. fired, 4 chest / 1 head hit at night on parallel, then laterally, moving target).

However, the "interview" (3 hour interrogation) with the I/A morons was a clusterfu#*.

"Did you ever think to use your P.A. to tell him to stop?" Well, I figured the blue lights/siren conveyed that sufficiently...also, my vehicle doesn't have a P.A.

"What?! You said earlier that all your equipment was working!" Uh, yeah...all the emergency equipment that is installed on my vehicle was working.

"Have you previously notified a supervisor that you don't have a P.A?!" Well, since you guys equipped and issued the vehicle to me, I assumed you knew it didn't have one. Do I need to notify you that the roof-mounted lightbar that I don't have isn't working then? (My vehicle had an interior windshield lightbar).

"You have a lot of training...have you ever trained to shoot at a moving vehicle??" I've always been trained to shoot at the threat.

"But have you ever been trained to shoot at a moving vehicle?!" I've shot at a moving target on the range before, but not a moving vehicle.

"Why do you think that is??" (I assumed they were trying to get me to admit on record that shooting at a moving vehicle threat is a bad idea, even though within policy) My answer..."Well, I figure because it's too hard to find someone willing to drive a car back and forth across the range while someone shoots at them."

I could almost hear the "Doh!" in their heads after each answer.

They also asked if I always ran the tag of a vehicle I was stopping before making contact with the driver. I initially scoffed...then realized they were genuinely asking and had no clue why you'd do that.

It's amazing the level of ignorance and ineptitude of policy makers and interpreters.

Sorry about that experience.

I’m grateful that my old agency’s shooting investigations were conducted by LSP Detectives and not IA. Primary members of the shooting investigation team included the Lead Detective, Firearms Training Unit Supervisor and the Crime Lab Physical Evidence Section. I’ve been on both sides of the interview.

Since the primary potential issue with shootings is criminal, it’s just makes sense to keep criminal and administrative crap totally separate. IA tends to deals with administrative type issues and probably doesn’t have a lot of criminal investigations experience in many agencies. In general, IMO, criminal investigators tend to have a less IA BS focus.

[kwb377]

Having been through post-critical incident interviews, I feel you're frustration. None of mine lasted that long.

Genuinely curious though ... after giving an interview to the investigators, you had to give another one to IA? Contemporaneous to the OIS or later on after the prosecuting attorney cleared you?

Erick,

The I/A investigation was separate from the criminal, and was merely for policy violations (if any). I wasn't allowed to have counsel or a supervisor present, not allowed to bring my duty weapon, phone or other recording device into the interview, and advised that refusing to answer any question or cooperate, or to talk about the interview to anyone would be grounds for dismissal.

A couple of other zingers I remembered from the interview:

The subject turned onto a dead-end residential street at the end of the pursuit. Their question, "Why did you follow him to the dead end? When you realized it was a dead end, why didn't you just stop and wait for him to come back out? You put yourself in danger by following him and not just stopping" Because the dead-end sign was 100 feet from the actual dead-end?

At the terminus of the pursuit, at one point the subject drove head on toward my Tahoe and I wrote in my statement that I thought he was about to ram me. They asked, "Did he try to ram you before that during the pursuit?" Not that I know of...he did spin around at point his car toward my vehicle a couple of times. "If he didn't try to ram you before, then what makes you think he was trying to do it then?". My agitation and sarcasm kicked into high gear...

"Sooo...if I make a second approach during a traffic stop and a suspect points a gun at me, I'm supposed to assume they're not going to shoot me since they didn't shoot me on the initial approach?!" All I got was crickets and deer-in-the-headlights on that one.

I had gotten a call from another Trooper that had been involved in a shooting about two years earlier (another good shoot). He said, "Get ready...they're going to treat you like a criminal", so I was somewhat prepared for their antics.



Juxtaposed with the actual criminal investigation which consisted of an investigator from my agency calling me on the second day, "Hey...how 'bout emailing a copy of your statement over to Sgt. {xxx} at the Sheriff's Office." (they did the criminal investigation). I never actually talked to anyone at the S.O., all I got was a "Thanks!" email response from the investigating Sergeant.


As far as the DA's investigation, this occurred during a heated election. Once the case went to his office, it sat on his desk for almost 2 1/2 months (luckily there was very little press or public attention to the case). When my COC called to check on the progress, they got "Meh...I've been too busy campaigning to take a look at it". He lost the office and with my pending retirement closing in, my COC called again..."Oh, uh...yeah, he's good. I'll go ahead and write up a letter and send it over." I knew it was a good shoot, but it's still stressful to ride out your last couple of months on a desk waiting for the official "OK".

[BehindBlueI's]

I've given post-Miranda statements to criminal investigators twice. Both of those times the same statement was presumably used administratively since I didn't have to give a second. When I didn't give a post-Miranda, I had to give a Garrity protected statement to IA afterward. If it's a fatal OIS, we don't give statements to IA until cleared by the pysch office.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Recently released OIS video - Robbery, attempted stabbing, Taser failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eJlmyQUUQE

[0ddl0t]

8/3/19 Colorado Springs: fleeing armed robbery suspect shot in the back

https://vimeo.com/354040149

[Sixgun_Symphony]

8/3/19 Colorado Springs: fleeing armed robbery suspect shot in the back

https://vimeo.com/354040149

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Bailey+autopsy.pdf

[TC215]

8/3/19 Colorado Springs: fleeing armed robbery suspect shot in the back

https://vimeo.com/354040149

It’s hard to shoot someone fleeing you in the front...

[JF1]

"Fleeing" suspects can pose an immediate threat to you and you need not wait to have a gun pointed in your face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxJ2dRqnkpU