LE UOF Video thread

[iWander]

His supervisor should force him to go to the hospital anyway for shrapnel wounds, stress related injuries to heart, etc.

[JCS]

Sometimes you have to do both, unfortunately the top brass doesn't think ahead and while he did a good job and came out on top, I'd promptly take myself in to a hospital for an on duty hearing injury.

Is shooting while driving something that is addressed in protocol?

[iWander]

Yes with some agencies. We have covered shooting while inside a cruiser both stationary and moving

[voodoo_man]

Is shooting while driving something that is addressed in protocol?

Oh yeah. My PDs policy reads "you shall not discharge a firearm from or into a moving vehicle."

I didnt add the bold or underline for emphasis, it is in the actual policy.

...and btw we have done it and will continue to do as the state code allows us to do it legally as long as we can articulate it.

[Erick Gelhaus]

The suspect had killed multiple people and wounded more. He was not complying, he was not surendering, he was obviously armed and continuing to present a lethal threat to the officers and the community. The use of deadly force in this circumstance damn near fits a textbook definition of Tennessee v. Garner. Part of the consideration is whether or not it'd be objectively reasonable or not under Graham v. Connor. Probably the most on-point case is Scott v. Harris which addressed the use of deadly force to end the lethal force threat caused by a suspect fleeing during a high-speed pursuit, the suspect became a quadrapalegic and the Supreme Court ruled the deadly force used was reasonable.
Then there are Plumhoff v. Rickard and Mullenix v. Luna, both of which relate to pursuits and shootings.

As mentioned, events like this and Fremont/San Francisco, Santa Monica, Caan, and more are why banning shooting at suspects in vehicles or from vehicles at them are really lousy ideas. Those bad ideas are not supported by the current case law.

Watching the videos, my concerns were the officer's hearing (albeit not as important as his life) and long range briefing issues due to aerosolized glass getting inhaled.

The suspect exiting his truck after putting it in reverse and following it towards the officers' was an interesting tactic. Also, I noticed that there little, if any, cover aside from the patrol cars in the area.

[voodoo_man]

The suspect had killed multiple people and wounded more. He was not complying, he was not surendering, he was obviously armed and continuing to present a lethal threat to the officers and the community. The use of deadly force in this circumstance damn near fits a textbook definition of Tennessee v. Garner. Part of the consideration is whether or not it'd be objectively reasonable or not under Graham v. Connor. Probably the most on-point case is Scott v. Harris which addressed the use of deadly force to end the lethal force threat caused by a suspect fleeing during a high-speed pursuit, the suspect became a quadrapalegic and the Supreme Court ruled the deadly force used was reasonable.
Then there are Plumhoff v. Rickard and Mullenix v. Luna, both of which relate to pursuits and shootings.

As mentioned, events like this and Fremont/San Francisco, Santa Monica, Caan, and more are why banning shooting at suspects in vehicles or from vehicles at them are really lousy ideas. Those bad ideas are not supported by the current case law.

Watching the videos, my concerns were the officer's hearing (albeit not as important as his life) and long range briefing issues due to aerosolized glass getting inhaled.

The suspect exiting his truck after putting it in reverse and following it towards the officers' was an interesting tactic. Also, I noticed that there little, if any, cover aside from the patrol cars in the area.

As I've stated before, it always comes to reasonableness of actions taken by the police officers. Just how many check marks do there need to be before deadly force is not just reasonable, but required to be used during a pursuit? PD's go out of their way to limit the actions of their officers through administrative punishments, even though state/federal rulings allow those actions to take place.

Given the circumstances here, their FOP or that discharging trooper, if he was so inclined, should go and attempt to make policy changes at a state or possibly a federal level. Specifically pushing forward a civil suit which would not only mandate departments to provide suppressors/hearing safe firearms but provide a distinctly safer way of conducting these types of stops.

I went over the videos a few times and the fact the guy stopped, put his truck in reverse and engaged the officer(s) with rolling cover is a very bold move. I assume the officer(s) understood at that point the entire situation needed to be ended, which is why the giggle switch came out to play. Furthermore, that situation could have easily gone to shit because the patrol vehicles are not cover and barely concealment (especially with flashing lights and sirens). The officer(s), while there were more of them than the bad guy, were still at a distinct disadvantage. The only way for the officer(s) to properly and safely conclude the situation was to deploy a level of force vastly superior to the bad guy (violence of action).

I can only compare and contrast this situation to the way my PD would have handled it and the phrase shit show would be on par with the correct context.

[voodoo_man]

Just saw this and its cool...

[Luke]

First one used in Alabama with a dude driving a 4x4 duramax should be fun to watch..

[Nephrology]

Sometimes you have to do both, unfortunately the top brass doesn't think ahead and while he did a good job and came out on top, I'd promptly take myself in to a hospital for an on duty hearing injury.

Just as an FYI if you fire a gun without ear protection and are left with a residual ringing in your ears/hearing loss 12-24h later, definitely try to make an appointment with Otolaryngology (ENT) ASAP. A 10-14 day regimen of oral steroids given after loud noise exposure can be helpful in preventing long term damage (tinnitus, hearing loss) and it works best if it's given as soon as possible after the exposure (within 2 weeks I think).

If you have any blood coming from your ears or problems with balance/vertigo/dizziness after shooting a gun in close quarters, go to an ER ASAP. Don't wait to follow up the next morning. Blood means you perforated your tympanic membrane and dizziness means you damaged your inner ear. I don't know what ENT does for either of those things but I definitely would want to get a surgical consult ASAP.

[voodoo_man]

Just as an FYI if you fire a gun without ear protection and are left with a residual ringing in your ears/hearing loss 12-24h later, definitely try to make an appointment with Otolaryngology (ENT) ASAP. A 10-14 day regimen of oral steroids given after loud noise exposure can be helpful in preventing long term damage (tinnitus, hearing loss) and it works best if it's given as soon as possible after the exposure (within 2 weeks I think).

If you have any blood coming from your ears or problems with balance/vertigo/dizziness after shooting a gun in close quarters, go to an ER ASAP. Don't wait to follow up the next morning. Blood means you perforated your tympanic membrane and dizziness means you damaged your inner ear. I don't know what ENT does for either of those things but I definitely would want to get a surgical consult ASAP.

I agree and recommend this as well. I was in a CQ type situation many years ago and someone discharged a 20" M16 next to my head in a burst, no ear pro (very hastily put together team due to an active exigent circumstance type situation). The ER doc was NOT happy to see me.