Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 126

Thread: Thoughts on LEO Rules of Engagement

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    As far as Greg Elifritz, some of his technical analysis and training methodology is good but honestly he has been a full time training officer in cupcake area for years. All policing is local. The hands off approach he advocates might work in his town but doesn’t work in high crime areas. Cops are paid to be curious and should be out turning over rocks, not just waiting for 911 calls or things to fall into their lap. His “ don’t stop people for traffic / expired tags etc” argument really rubs me the wrong way. Just because you stop them doesn’t mean you can simply issue a warning if nothing more is amiss.

    His argument with Dunphy and French’s claim that because no cop has been killed in Sacramento since 1999 there is somehow less risk in each unknown encounter is simply ridiculous. If I flip a coin every day do the odds of each individual flip resulting in tails change from day to day ?
    I’ve read a little of his stuff. He seems to try to pass off what he believes as “the way”, when it’s really just “a way”.

    I’ve also seen him discuss common practices and court opinions that may be acceptable where he is like they’re widely accepted nationally, when they’re definitely not.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    I thought this mught be relevant to the discussion. Proposed law makes it a crime for LE to shoot someone holding a imitation gun.

    ttps://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/proposed-law-says-suspects-with-imitation-weapons-can-t-be-shot-by-police-Wz28jHQvuUuIVTOlvhs83A/?full=1

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    This circles back to the CA thread, but based on your description the proposed law would be in direct conflict with SCOTUS precedent under Graham and Garner. Although states and localities can grant/recognize citizens more rights than guaranteed under federal standards, police officers are also citizens who have individual rights which cannot be denied. In an OIS scenario, granting the citizen more protection than Graham/Garner would deny the officer his/her/its/whatever's rights guaranteed under the federal constitution and SCOTUS. If these types of laws come to pass, it won't take long for a test case to come to the SCOTUS as it is clearly an issue of states' rights vs. federal preemption.

    Ultimately our legal system has traditionally recognized that in order to provide a necessary service for the community, police officers must be judged under the standard of a reasonable officer at the time of the incident, not by the standard of a non-officer citizen with the benefit of hindsight. If officers were to be systematically judged under a standard of the non-officer citizen with the benefit of hindsight, then there would be no reason anyone would willingly take the oath. Without effective law enforcement, rule of law will not prevail and without rule of law societies often struggle.
    Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.

  3. #23
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. I am not suggesting that is what we should do in the US. But I would think we could learn some of the tactics they use that are successful at arresting people without pointing guns at them.

    I read a story about a Fairfax woman who was caught driving in a police perimeter established from a shooting incident. Police didn't know if she was involved or not. She was unresponsive to police and refused to get out of her vehicle or roll her window. Police eventually used a ballistic shield and less lethal to approach the vehicle and break the window and get her out. I think this was a good example where tactics were used that didn't put either party at more risk. It turned out the woman was a neighbor and not involved.
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. I am not suggesting that is what we should do in the US. But I would think we could learn some of the tactics they use that are successful at arresting people without pointing guns at them.

    I read a story about a Fairfax woman who was caught driving in a police perimeter established from a shooting incident. Police didn't know if she was involved or not. She was unresponsive to police and refused to get out of her vehicle or roll her window. Police eventually used a ballistic shield and less lethal to approach the vehicle and break the window and get her out. I think this was a good example where tactics were used that didn't put either party at more risk. It turned out the woman was a neighbor and not involved.
    If a ballistic shield and less-lethal were present, you can bet that a lethal option was also present (i.e.- guns pointed at someone).

  5. #25
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    French’s article contains a lot of “smoke” half truths presented in a light solely to favor his argument. For example French’s argument that young soldiers routinely excercise the same level of independent judgement as cops for “less pay” is ludicrous. There is a whole chain of command from officers and JAGs like French to NCOs intentionally narrowing that privates options.
    That chain of command is not there in the moment looking through the Private's M68 (Aimpoint). The chain of command narrowing his options is analogous to department policies and state law perhaps.

    When the Soldier is eye to eye with a sketchy AFG local cop who is leaning into his US supplied SAW for tense minutes that Soldier is doing exactly as French described.
    As a man sows, so shall he reap.

  6. #26
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    If a ballistic shield and less-lethal were present, you can bet that a lethal option was also present (i.e.- guns pointed at someone).
    Maybe but did they need to be? Here in Fairfax County we had two incidents where citizens were shot and killed accidentally. One was Sal Culosi Junior who was being arrested in his shorts and t-shirt on the front steps of his home and presented no threat. A SWAT officer admitted to accidentally touching the trigger of his pistol. Another incident was a drunk man John Geer who was negotiating a surrender and was shot without presenting a threat. That officer was convicted of manslaughter and would have stood trial for murder.

    My point is that pointing a loaded firearm at a person who does not yet present a threat can lead to accidents and death and I think officers should be trained to be at a ready position and the muzzle just to the side of a suspect until they become a threat.

    That would not have changed the outcomes of Sacramento or New York City but it would have changed the outcomes of the two men in Fairfax.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    Maybe but did they need to be? Here in Fairfax County we had two incidents where citizens were shot and killed accidentally. One was Sal Culosi Junior who was being arrested in his shorts and t-shirt on the front steps of his home and presented no threat. A SWAT officer admitted to accidentally touching the trigger of his pistol. Another incident was a drunk man John Geer who was negotiating a surrender and was shot without presenting a threat. That officer was convicted of manslaughter and would have stood trial for murder.

    My point is that pointing a loaded firearm at a person who does not yet present a threat can lead to accidents and death and I think officers should be trained to be at a ready position and the muzzle just to the side of a suspect until they become a threat.

    That would not have changed the outcomes of Sacramento or New York City but it would have changed the outcomes of the two men in Fairfax.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    I’m not disagreeing with you about pointing guns at people. I’m just saying that when using less lethal tools, lethal cover should be present.

  8. #28
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00fa46f872c28

    Sorry for the link to HuffPost - but saw this article - proposed legislation to change "reasonable" to "necessary." Seems fraught for debate.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Qaz98 View Post
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00fa46f872c28

    Sorry for the link to HuffPost - but saw this article - proposed legislation to change "reasonable" to "necessary." Seems fraught for debate.
    Proposed change in CA to CAState Law. CA State Government is inherently unreasonable. The objective reasonableness standard comes from the SCOTUS decisions Chief Weems cited, not from state law. The proposed change would likely be found unconstitutional but like many other things, who wants to be the test case?
    Last edited by HCM; 04-05-2018 at 10:16 AM.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. I am not suggesting that is what we should do in the US. But I would think we could learn some of the tactics they use that are successful at arresting people without pointing guns at them.

    I read a story about a Fairfax woman who was caught driving in a police perimeter established from a shooting incident. Police didn't know if she was involved or not. She was unresponsive to police and refused to get out of her vehicle or roll her window. Police eventually used a ballistic shield and less lethal to approach the vehicle and break the window and get her out. I think this was a good example where tactics were used that didn't put either party at more risk. It turned out the woman was a neighbor and not involved.
    Actually a significant portion of police in the UK, normally about 25% of any shift actuall patrol armed and are the armed back up for the other officers, who basically stall armed suspects till armed officers arrive. I believe NZ and Norway use a similar system. At least some Norwegian cops are armed, they carry P30L LEMs. In Northern Ireland, which is also part of the UK, all cops are armed.

    Norway may also use a system similar to the French where the national police are all armed and some of the local / municipal police are not. That may be changing in France. Last I heard all local / municipal police at least had the option to be armed.



    As TC noted ragarding your Faisal story, I can guarantee you less lethal and a shield were not used without lethal cover pointed at her.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •