If being kind, he is a police procedure expert rather than a use of force expert.Originally Posted by El Cid
Some might call him a sell out whore but that would be unkind.
I'm curious about his history with Officer McBride's father and the LAPD unions well.
I'm just kind of pointing this out because I've read several 'statements' regarding use-of-force in this thread and others which may not be factually correct in all circumstances.
As an instructor I've always understood that I'm responsible for EVERY thing that comes out of my mouth when I'm teaching use-of-force. I own it, and if I'm not willing to own it, in court, then I shouldn't say it/teach it.
If you are instructing officers, think about it before you couch things in absolutes.
Graham points out that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application (expanded application from the Court's statement in Bell v. Wolfish, which addressed body cavity searches). In doing so Graham seemingly renders the absolutes of if/then continuum style application largely indefensible.
Additionally, if you are familiar with the SCOTUS finding in Beaver v. City of Federal Way, it is clear by this - The Court finds that the defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment as a result of the fourth and fifth tasings. The Court also finds that tasings one, two and three did not violate the plaintiff's rights - that “You’ve got to analyze each shot” as the plantiff's expert witness stated in the case this thread is discussing was a correct assertation.
FWIW.
First, the plaintiffs attorney claimed the officer shot as fast as she could. The body worn camera footage clearly contradicts that.
The body worn camera footage clearly records the shots being fired in three controlled pairs: 1-2, assess, 1-2, assess, 1-2, assess. Someone can put it on a timer but it sounds to me like controlled pairs with .50 splits in the two shot pairs. That is well within evaluation speed which is .25 to .30 for a skilled shooter with normal to good processor speed. Now factor in that those who work to develop processor speed in activities like competive shooting or high speed driving can both see and process faster than those who dont.
As for Williams the "hired gun" in the spectrum news article, he is not the plaintiffs expert. He is just shilling for business taking free advertising at the officer's expense. He isn't lying about the need to evaluate during the application of force. Rather he is lying by claiming the officer did not evaluate that when the pace of the shots on the body camera footage clearly shows she did.
Last edited by HCM; 07-20-2020 at 09:44 PM.
My mistake on the plaintiff's attorney. As far as pacing of shots, what the body camera shows, etc. I don't presume to know what the officer was thinking or doing.
I do think that the shots beyond the second will be subjected to the same scrutiny civilly as were the TASER deployments in Beaver. The battle of the expert witnesses will be at what point a man with a box cutter, trying to get off the ground, is a lethal threat.
In this case, the weapon being used will, no doubt, be a consideration. And that was the crux of my comment regarding absolute statements regarding force.
The issue isn't the officer's processing speed, rather whether the officers assessment was correct.
The problem is not competitive shooting but the posting of videos of it on YouTube, Instagram etc creating a permanent record or your mind set at any given point that can be used against you. I have always been a fan of filming yourself to get better but never for posting for public viewing. As a officer the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Reply With Quote