View Full Version : These cops are going to end up killing someone...
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 20:12
We never treated Iraqis like this for driving up to a checkpoint. These cops need to be stood down and relieved of duty if they can't handle interactions with people without handguns at the low ready because 1 out of 10 million people in the area went nuts.
Sorry if you don't like it. :cray: Deal with it.....this is obviously a situation outside of their mental capabilities, and with them dealing with people like this it's only a matter of time before someone is killed.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/photo_zps385ec232.jpg
I wouldn't want to be driving up their checkpoint in a truck...
Thats an interesting opinion.
I personally would have no problem conducting a traffic stop with my gun out of the holster down by my side, if I feel something is up (or the occupants are acting suspicious). Of course I've never conducted an unconstitutional checkpoint either.
Just because my gun is in my hand doesnt mean someone is going to be shot.
I think policy should dictate what actions are appropriate.
P.S. I've never heard of THAT being called "low ready".
I wouldn't want to be driving up their checkpoint in a truck...
Why is that?
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 20:23
Thats an interesting opinion.
I personally would have no problem conducting a traffic stop with my gun out of the holster down by my side, if I feel something is up (or the occupants are acting suspicious).
Just because my gun is in my hand doesnt mean someone is going to be shot.
I think policy should dictate what actions are appropriate.
Dude its the US, and we didn't treat Iraqis like that in a WAR ZONE.
I also worked at an interrogation center prison, and things didn't work like that.
The truck is gone.... they have no idea what he is driving..... or who he may have kidnapped...
If he has kidnapped someone he could be anywhere. Forced them to drive him somewhere.
Bolt_Overide
02-09-13, 20:27
another good reason to stay the **** out of kommiefornia.
We never treated Iraqis like this for driving up to a checkpoint. You say that, but when I was there we had our rifles ready. I always had my hand on the grip, thumb on the safety and finger straight, ready to go.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 20:38
You say that, but when I was there we had our rifles ready. I always had my hand on the grip, thumb on the safety and finger straight, ready to go.
We have overwatch but the people who were dealing with the drivers and passengers were not at a crouched low ready like that. We had a SAW behind us, and a M2 most of the time. I am talking about the face to face. We always had the non face to face guys ready but never had anyone with an m9 at the low ready talking to people.
And different units did different things. I have my own opinion on that, and I know for 100% certainty the people who relieved us had a much harder time. I searched around 200 people a day plus numerous vehicles, and we knew what we were doing.
ETA At any rate...this is picture was in Cali likely on a road with a bunch of snowboarders not a CP in Iraq.
Dude its the US, and we didn't treat Iraqis like that in a WAR ZONE.
I also worked at an interrogation center prison, and things didn't work like that.
Thats great. I've never treated a U.S. Citizen like a prisoner at Abu Ghraib either sooooo.....your point?
Having a gun out is one thing, pointing it at someone is another. And firing it is a world away.
I listen to my gut. If my gut tells me something is up (ie fishy) I dont think twice pull out the ol' 35.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 20:45
Thats great. I've never treated a U.S. Citizen like a prisoner at Abu Ghraib either sooooo.....your point?
Having a gun out is one thing, pointing it at someone is another. And firing it is a world away.
Exactly what I said in the OP. Its only a matter of time before they kill someone because they are so on edge over 1 guy they are manning checkpoints with face to face interactions with guns at the low ready which means they are ready to engage someone very quickly. We should not have that here.
This ain't Iraq or anywhere else. I worry about the people over there, and grew up around there.
Thats an interesting opinion.
P.S. I've never heard of THAT being called "low ready".
Perfect name for it.
Why is that?
Have you been watching the news? Trucks in SoCal are on the shoot first ask questions later list.
Moose-Knuckle
02-09-13, 20:52
I'm glad I'm not this trucker.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LAcophunt_zpsa462ffce.jpg
Have you been watching the news? Trucks in SoCal are on the shoot first ask questions later list.
Yeah... The first day of the manhunt... Before his truck was found on fire like 2 days ago. There is zero reason they should be more suspicious of a truck than any other vehicle at this point in time. Have you been watching the news?
Have you been watching the news? Trucks in SoCal are on the shoot first ask questions later list.
??? Why?
I hear ya. Personally I think we should be disarmed and only carry hello kitty bubble guns and silly string.
Plus I mean why not judge an entire profession by the actions of one individual. I mean all gun owners are crazy because of the sandy hook thing right? Sound logic...............
Better yet, why not have the military conduct these checkpoints, apparently they are much more versed in those operations...That way those poor guys can get back to their actual job (calls for service)
TacMedic556
02-09-13, 20:57
Here's truck of the 71 year old woman who was delivering papers.
Notice how bad the shots dipped as they panicked and shot way to low.
http://static.globalgrind.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_images_540/images/2013_february/6a00d8341c630a53ef017ee8532be3970d-640wi_0.jpg
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 20:59
Yeah... The first day of the manhunt... Before his truck was found on fire like 2 days ago. There is zero reason they should be more suspicious of a truck than any other vehicle at this point in time. Have you been watching the news?
The pic I posted is from today.
The pic I posted is from today.
And..? The photographer happened to snap a picture of a truck at the check point. I'm positive they're treating every vehicle the same way.
We have overwatch but the people who were dealing with the drivers and passengers were not at a crouched low ready like that. We had a SAW behind us, and a M2 most of the time. I am talking about the face to face. We always had the non face to face guys ready but never had anyone with an m9 at the low ready talking to people.
And different units did different things. I have my own opinion on that, and I know for 100% certainty the people who relieved us had a much harder time. I searched around 200 people a day plus numerous vehicles, and we knew what we were doing.
ETA At any rate...this is picture was in Cali likely on a road with a bunch of snowboarders not a CP in Iraq.
They likely don't have anywhere near the type of overwatch (If any at all) that you had, nor a SAW or M2 behind them like you had in Iraq. Maybe that is why they are attempting to be as "ready" as they possibly can be during their face-to-face interactions while searching for this very specific target in this specific location?
Local LE resources are stretched paper thin in-terms of both equipment & training.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:16
And..? The photographer happened to snap a picture of a truck at the check point. I'm positive they're treating every vehicle the same way.
Which makes it all the disturbing, and why I said its only a matter of time before they kill someone.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/DSC00949.jpg
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:17
They likely don't have a SAW or M2 behind them nor do they have a fraction of the weaponry resources that you had in Iraq. Maybe that is why they are attempting to be as "ready" as they possibly can be while searching for this very specific target in this specific location?
This isn't Iraq.
This isn't Iraq.
Exactly.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:29
Exactly.
I don't think you realizing the context here. While yes, this is a specific threat, and one which I hope is killed, we have a bunch of jumpy cops who have already lit up 2 innocent vehicles, and they are not used to Iraq, and even then we didn't treat people that way.
While, no they didn't have a SAW or M2 behind them they don't need it, and they were also not facing the threats we were. 1 in 10 million, and millions more around the SoCal and SF area is not, IMO, reason to be at the low ready and some restraint needs to be shown. Thats it. I have no problem with them having the guns they do, or whatever else. CA can handle it like they want to, I just don't want someone to get killed or this be blown out or proportion where people are driving up to check points with jumpy cops.
Of course people will take this as 'cop bashing'. Whatever. I am just relating my experiences, and don't want to see any more harm done than needed to bring this guy in, and I sure as hell don't EVER want to drive up on a checkpoint with a cop at the low ready. I drive around here at times with an AR on the front seat in plain view and fully loaded which is legal in Texas.
I don't think you realizing the context here. While yes, this is a specific threat, and one which I hope is killed, we have a bunch of jumpy cops who have already lit up 2 innocent vehicles, and they are not used to Iraq, and even then we didn't treat people that way.
While, no they didn't have a SAW or M2 behind them they don't need it, and they were also not facing the threats we were. 1 in 10 million, and millions more around the SoCal and SF area is not, IMO, reason to be at the low ready and some restraint needs to be shown. Thats it. I have no problem with them having the guns they do, or whatever else. CA can handle it like they want to, I just don't want someone to get killed or this be blown out or proportion where people are driving up to check points with jumpy cops.
Of course people will take this as 'cop bashing'. Whatever. I am just relating my experiences, and don't want to see any more harm done than needed to bring this guy in, and I sure as hell don't EVER want to drive up on a checkpoint with a cop at the low ready. I drive around here at times with an AR on the front seat in plain view and fully loaded which is legal in Texas.
Well that wouldn't be legal in Cali, and I'm guessing your AR and mag themselves would be illegal as well. So of course if you were in Cali, you wouldn't have a loaded AR on your front seat.
And the guy in the picture is hardly at low ready.
Plus I mean why not judge an entire profession by the actions of one individual. I mean all gun owners are crazy because of the sandy hook thing right? Sound logic...............
Are you referring to the 7 cops who opened fire on the Tacoma or the one opened fire on the Honda? No one was judging an entire profession.
I also worked at an interrogation center prison, and things didn't work like that.
No shit, which one? PM me.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:38
Well that wouldn't be legal in Cali, and I'm guessing your AR and mag themselves would be illegal as well. So of course if you were in Cali, you wouldn't have a loaded AR on your front seat.
And the guy in the picture is hardly at low ready.
So what? It could be anything else including delivering newspapers or driving to work.
Oh I didn't you know you were the low ready decider. Always taught gun down but 'ready' was 'low ready'. What is that position then?
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:41
No shit, which one? PM me.
No secret. Its all closed now. FOB Justice. I left a couple weeks before Saddam was hung about 100 yard from where I slept. The interogation place was ran by Iraqis. We sat in, and had our interpreter to make sure everything was kosher.
Oh I didn't you know you were the low ready decider. Always taught gun down but 'ready' was 'low ready'. What is that position then?
Yep, I am the low ready decider. That's my actual job title.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-low-ready-position/
I would call that position "low unready." Or "gun in hand."
This isn't Iraq.
We get it. You were in Iraq, and are way more hardcore than those poor country bumpkin popo coppers that are apparently too "jumpy" to perform their job.
Maybe you should volunteer your expertise of hardcore checkpoint operator knowledge. Train them up properly.
FYI your arguement should probably be against the checkpoints themselves. Not the fact that a Police officer has the audacity to remove his weapon from its holster. I know, Im probably out of line as Im not an "operator". I just super glued my pistol into its holster, since im not hardcore enough to remove it...and hold it.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:49
Yep, I am the low ready decider. That's my actual job title.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-low-ready-position/
I would call that position "low unready." Or "gun in hand."
Good for you.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:53
We get it. You were in Iraq, and are way more hardcore than those poor country bumpkin popo coppers that are apparently too "jumpy" to perform their job.
Maybe you should volunteer your expertise of hardcore checkpoint operator knowledge. Train them up properly.
FYI your arguement should probably be against the checkpoints themselves. Not the fact that a Police officer has the audacity to remove his weapon from its holster. I know, Im probably out of line as Im not an "operator".
Not at all. You can look up 31R, and what became 25Q for my MOS.
You don't need to degenerate this to straw men and personal stuff. I havent posted a single personal thing against anyone, and hope you don't deride the thread in such a manner.
If you can't debate or discuss things in a objective manner then maybe you don't need to be posting here which is why threads always get locked....personal attacks. Don't go there, and we will be fine. I never said I was an operator, and my MOS is part of my username for all to look up.
Good for you.
The equivalent rifle posture is simply holding the rifle, muzzle pointed down and away perpendicular to how you're facing (as in, the rifle is across your body). Do you believe that is low ready?
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 21:58
The equivalent rifle posture is simply holding the rifle, muzzle pointed down and away perpendicular to how you're facing. Do you believe that is low ready?
Good for you doesn't mean I agree.
ETA you edited while I was replying.
Rifle down in a 'ready' posture is low ready to me. Muzzle up is 'high ready'. Otherwise is would be slung or a pistol would be holstered.
It wasnt a personal attack. Just an acknowlegment of superior training knowledge, that I think should be shared.
Your stance is these people have not been trained properly correct? So apparently you know the training they need.
Me personally? I think its ridiculous to ridicule a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer for simply unholstering a firearm. How dare the guy hold a gun (NOT at a low ready or pointed at anyone) while looking for an psychotic gunman. But again, I need to get back in "my lane" i guess.
Voodoochild
02-09-13, 22:01
A friendly warning to everyone posting in this thread. Heed the rules of M4C no anti LEO posts it is getting very close and I won't be gun shy on deleting posts and handing out timeouts. Do not take my kindness as a sign of weakness.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 22:09
It wasnt a personal attack. Just an acknowlegment of superior training knowledge, that I think should be shared.
Your stance is these people have not been trained properly correct? So apparently you know the training they need.
Me personally? I think its ridiculous to ridicule a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer for simply unholstering a firearm. How dare the guy hold a gun (NOT at a low ready or pointed at anyone) while looking for an psychotic gunman. But again, I need to get back in "my lane" i guess.
The picture I posted was at a CP, and something I did for months everyday without a day off. So yes, I think I could give 'some' advice to someone doing that, and I would say trying to talk to people like a nervous nelly with a low ready pistol ain't going to get you very far. FWIW I was recognized by unit for outstanding service, and sent home with the advanced party so I didn't have to go through Kuwait and all the truck washing BS and customs. I got one of our terps sent to the interogations jail through the MI detachment. I took out CP very seriously, and you don't need to deride things by 'me' being it a know it all or 'operator'. You're simply trying to deride this and confuse the argument at this point.
polymorpheous
02-09-13, 22:14
This forum has really turned to shit the last month or so.
General discussion needs to be gone and it is the fault of senior members.
You all should know better. Stop being so unprofessional.
Check your egos at the door and put your dick back in your pants before deciding to post because no one cares how big it is.
This civilian vs. LEO shit is getting old too.
Dummy the **** up, because when is comes down to it, we are all on the same side.
This makes me wonder if some members are shills who post inflammatory comments to divide us.
If I receive an infraction for this so be it.
I'm tired of the bullshit.
We HAD higher standards here.
Good for you doesn't mean I agree.
ETA you edited while I was replying.
Rifle down in a 'ready' posture is low ready to me. Muzzle up is 'high ready'. Otherwise is would be slung or a pistol would be holstered.
Everything I've read and every instructor I've worked with has essentially defined low ready as on target and ready to shoot, but lowering the weapon just enough for increased situational awareness. A one handed pistol grip pointing straight down at the ground doesn't fall under that definition. It's more threatening than a holstered pistol for sure, but doesn't come near a true low ready stance, which would in this case be a two handed grip with the muzzle angled towards the bottom of the car.
Anyway, agree to disagree. Your training obviously differs from mine. And we're just debating semantics.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 22:23
A friendly warning to everyone posting in this thread. Heed the rules of M4C no anti LEO posts it is getting very close and I won't be gun shy on deleting posts and handing out timeouts. Do not take my kindness as a sign of weakness.
Nothing I have posted is anti-LEO. Having a unique perspective, and questioning government is not anti-LEO.
If I said, "**** those cops." That is anti-LEO. I want them to do the best job they can while recognizing our rights, and not turning the LA area into a situation where ordinary people have to fear the police.
You don't need to deride things into claiming people are 'douche bags' because they didn't clap at the LAPD lighting up the 71 granny newspaper lady like you did in the other thread.
Belmont31R
02-09-13, 22:25
Anyway, agree to disagree. Your training obviously differs from mine. And we're just debating semantics.
Exactly right, and semantics it is. The point is still the same.
GeorgiaBoy
02-09-13, 22:26
This forum has really turned to shit the last month or so.
Tensions have been heightened since before the election. Any sort of disagreement leads to smart ass remarks, personal attacks, victimization, ego tripping, and a general lack of cordiality.
Now with the gun control coupled to it everyone is in a constant state of PMS.
NCPatrolAR
02-09-13, 23:09
That's another ban I've slapped on someone today. I wasn't joking when I said that I'm not putting up with any more of the juvenile BS that is going in GD right now.
When a mod or a staff member puts a warning in a thread; we aren't doing it for the mere enjoyment of posting. If you want to launch a post insulting the mod that issued the warning you should expect a timeout to be headed your way in a rapid manner.
Heavy Metal
02-09-13, 23:14
I'm glad I'm not this trucker.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LAcophunt_zpsa462ffce.jpg
I believe the officer is covering the space inside the truck and not the driver opening the door.
I am not commenting on if this is a good thing or not, just that photographic perspective can be deceptive when putting a 3D scene onto a 2D surface.
Moose-Knuckle
02-09-13, 23:22
I believe the officer is covering the space inside the truck and not the driver opening the door.
I am not commenting on if this is a good thing or not, just that photographic perspective can be deceptive when putting a 3D scene onto a 2D surface.
This is my understanding as well, however that muzzle is pointed in his direction from a few feet away. If an illegal stowaway popped out of the back of that rig and spooked the Highway Patrolman that truck driver would be in the line of fire. Muzzle discipline/awareness comes to mind.
Do commercial truckers have to consent to a warrantless search without probably cause?
Do commercial truckers have to consent to a warrantless search without probably cause?
I am not an officer of the law, but I would assume so yes. And that assumption is based purely off of the fact that there are "weigh in" stations on every major highway in this nation. These stations can force a commercial truck to pull over and weigh, so yea, I bet opening up the cargo compartment for a "look see" is pretty standard.
Do commercial truckers have to consent to a warrantless search without probably cause?
Cargo can be inspected, as can the commercial trucks carrying it for compliance with safety regulations, just like at any weigh station, be it permanent or temporary.
California Vehicle Code,
VC 2813. Every driver of a commercial vehicle shall stop and submit
the vehicle to an inspection of the size, weight, equipment, and
smoke emissions of the vehicle at any location where members of the
California Highway Patrol are conducting tests and inspections of
commercial vehicles and when signs are displayed requiring the stop.
Every driver who fails or refuses to stop and submit the vehicle to
an inspection when signs are displayed requiring that stop is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
My take is that the laws do not go out the window just because there's a psycho cop killer on the loose.
They can do road blocks and look in the windows of anyone's vehicle for items or persons "in plain sight". They can ask drivers a question or two, but the drivers are not obligated to reply. They're also not obligated to open the trunk or anything else. There is no probable cause for detainment.
Same goes for searches of homes. All that is legal is for the officers to knock on the doors and request permission to search around. If they are refused, they're SOL.
I feel, as most do, that the officers that shot up the blue Tacoma made a mistake. They're humans. It happens. The LAPD will (hopefully) handle it. And the women can always sue if they wish. That was major mistake and a breach of procedures.
Oh, and as to the OPs concern about unholstered pistols: IMO that's no different than hanging an AR by its sling in condition 1. Doesn't bother me. Particularly because if they snag Dorner in a checkpoint, he'll probably have the element of surprise. Milliseconds will count
My take is that the laws do not go out the window just because there's a psycho cop killer on the loose.
They can do road blocks and look in the windows of anyone's vehicle for items or persons "in plain sight". They can ask drivers a question or two, but the drivers are not obligated to reply. They're also not obligated to open the trunk or anything else. There is no probable cause for detainment.
Same goes for searches of homes. All that is legal is for the officers to knock on the doors and request permission to search around. If they are refused, they're SOL.
I feel, as most do, that the officers that shot up the blue Tacoma made a mistake. They're humans. It happens. The LAPD will (hopefully) handle it. And the women can always sue if they wish. That was major mistake and a breach of procedures.
Last I heard, all the officers involved in the accidental shootings were put on paid leave.
Last I heard, all the officers involved in the accidental shootings were put on paid leave.
There you go. Handled correctly.
Magic_Salad0892
02-10-13, 01:24
I don't mean to open up a can of worms, but about the accidental shootings:
I think that it's entirely possible that the police officers who fired those rounds may have been under the impression that Chris Dorner had accomplices, as if I read the article correctly, the police officers had heard gunshots hearby.
I could be wrong, but I'm not going to point fingers at the police for that incident until I know the full story.
I want to give the police the benefit of the doubt just as I would for a civilian.
(And I don't side with the position that those cops should be in prison for attempted murder or whatever it was in that other thread, because their job put them in that position, and the reports are not really public, and probably never will be.)
I see no real problem with how the police are conducting checkpoints, as long as they follow the law. Which I'm sure they will. I don't want to see any of this used as justification for Chris Dorner's acts.
Also, I've had an officer ask to search my car when there was a manhunt in Sacramento last time I visited (I'm actually in CA now, and will be for the next few weeks.) and he had his gun drawn. He was not threatening, nor was he unprofessional. Despite the bad rep that CA police get, most of them are good men, and quite professional.
If mods want me to pull this post, PM me, and I'll do so. If anybody wants to reply do it, please do so in a civil manner.
And even if anybody does reply to my post, please replace my actual quotes with "..." or "RE: accidental shooting incident."
I'm putting this disclaimer here, so that if the mods have to clean this thread up, it'll be easier for them.
If I recall correctly, the second shooting did happen in part because they heard gunshots... From the first accidental shooting a few minutes before.
...
I am also inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt, however in this particular case (the Tacoma shooting), given what we know, it's pretty hard for me to do so...in that it's difficult for me to consider plausible any explanation that would make their use of force justifiable. In the absence of (yet to be disclosed) seriously extenuating circumstances (at the level of a clear and objectively defined threat to the officers or third parties), I fail to see how this is not criminal. Yes, they wouldn't have been there if not for their job, but I'm not sure why that matters. They fired multiple rounds into an occupied vehicle (that was marginally in the same class of vehicle as the suspect vehicle), the occupants of which did not do anything that warranted getting shot (again, given what we know now).
I'm glad I'm not this trucker.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LAcophunt_zpsa462ffce.jpg
Jesus Christ.
:eek:
I think I'd just politely hand over the keys and invite them to check it out without my assistance.
I realize LAPD is at Defcon 2 right now, but some of their guys are acting like they've never managed a dangerous situation before. Hopefully nobody else gets hurt and procedural reviews follow.
I don't have time right now to nitpick the numerous flawed comments in this thread. I will say that I will be on the job with a dept soon and while I recently completed the academy, I'm not some dumbass out of school as I believe some are (for example j-dub - sorry, haven't found many of your posts worth reading much less respecting). I've been around the block a few times and I believe in reason over emotion which is why most of the posts here recently piss me off.
Belmont - Not sure why you got banned. Maybe there was reason but I liked you. I think the mods should review this unless there is more to this than I am seeing.
To everyone else - I am obviously not anti le. I agree with iraqgunz from other threads: if you weren't there, shut the **** up. At least until the investigation is completed. YOU WERE NOT THERE! The couch commando shit wears thin really fast.
I will say though that I sincerely believe that, other than special units, mid sized departments have the most qualified patrol officers. Not every one but many. Large departments, including LA, have shitty patrol officer training due to the expense of training the large numbers required to create presence. But at least they get good experience on the job. Small progressive departments such as, I am assuming here, alaskapopo's and j-dub's may have great training but real experience is scarce due to the location.
The cops in LA may well have ****ed up. But folks here need to understand and that every cop does not have tier one experience. Call them pussies or ****-ups that couldn't handle their shit but YOU weren't there. Some of you, on both sides of the isle, need to shut the **** up.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-13, 04:24
Yea, on that truck clearing photo I think I'd ask the cop to open the door and I'll cover him ;) There isn't anyone I've shot with that I'd let get that close to me with a muzzle. Isn't there a better way to clear a truck than that?
To take a step back, why don't these guys have rifles? I'd assume that the guy they are looking for has a high probability of having body armor on.
Jesus Christ.
:eek:
I think I'd just politely hand over the keys and invite them to check it out without my assistance.
I realize LAPD is at Defcon 2 right now, but some of their guys are acting like they've never managed a dangerous situation before. Hopefully nobody else gets hurt and procedural reviews follow.
Agreed. Having said that, I believe that is CHP instead of LAPD. I'd think that CHP troopers would have a little more experience conducting a high-risk cargo search given their agency mission.
ForTehNguyen
02-10-13, 08:43
more mistaken identity. Apparently let through a checkpoint then rammed by a police vehicle
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
IMO, one person on the loose isn't a reason to subject everyone to this.
The only other thing I'll say is leaving the pistol holstered with your hand on it, and the retention mechanism already defeated, would go a long way into appearing less aggressive, while adding virtually no time to your draw (versus being held at your side).
Being wound that tight, with just average patrol level firearm training... there is going to be some "trigger creep" happening out there.
LEO's are shot and killed all the time during traffic stops. If they're not allowed to conduct a traffic stop with their gun out of the holster normally, they shouldn't be doing it now either, IMO.
I don't mean to open up a can of worms, but about the accidental shootings:
"accidental"? That was not accidental. Negligent, mistaken identity, CF, whatever... but it was not accidental. For right or wrong, justified after the fact or not, it was no accident.
------
Agree on the truck search deal. If Dorner had been in the truck, that truck driver would be a dead man walking. I wonder if union regulations and laws require him to open it ( under normal situations ). Damn right, I would have said, here, take the keys, I'll wait over behind that big tree.
I have zero problem with that first picture though. LEO with gun pointed to ground. I've had LEO with gun in hand, and actually at low ready twice. First time I was in a check printing plant they thought was being robbed and I was first in on sun. night shift. I turned around and was staring at cops, guns, dog inside the building. Second time I was ( of all times ) exceeding the speed limit in a pickup truck right as someone had just robbed a restaurant also driving a pickup truck. they thought i was the guy. I never felt in danger in any of those situations and wasn't upset over it. Other than pissed because I got a ticket ( which was my fault ).
more mistaken identity. Apparently let through a checkpoint then rammed by a police vehicle
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
I suspect it only getting worse. I had hoped they would have him by now. Maybe he is a bit smarter than his manifesto lets on. I remember when the beltway sniper was around here. When I was buying gas I would try to stay out of the open. then I would look around and realize several other people were more open. I remember being in a parking lot several times right across the street from a motel they stayed in. The uniformed officers won't have that. They are going to know they stick out like a sore thumb no matter what even when they are sleeping. that's going to get old fast.
There isn't anyone I've shot with that I'd let get that close to me with a muzzle.
That hurts me , Man. :cray: :lol:
Voodoo_Man
02-10-13, 10:25
IMO, one person on the loose isn't a reason to subject everyone to this.
The only other thing I'll say is leaving the pistol holstered with your hand on it, and the retention mechanism already defeated, would go a long way into appearing less aggressive, while adding virtually no time to your draw (versus being held at your side).
Being wound that tight, with just average patrol level firearm training... there is going to be some "trigger creep" happening out there.
LEO's are shot and killed all the time during traffic stops. If they're not allowed to conduct a traffic stop with their gun out of the holster normally, they shouldn't be doing it now either, IMO.
There is no directive, policy, rules or otherwise in any department which instruct anyone in LE how or when to draw or use their firearm.
It simply does not exist and there is no "standard policy" across the entire spectrum of police departments.
For all we know that LEO always has his firearm out during traffic stops, which he is perfectly allowed to do.
I'm betting the killer cop has already killed himself and law enforcement will be searching forever unless maybe someday a hiker will come across his remains in the forest or mountains. Until that day arrives, cops will be on edge and many trigger happy...:dirol:
Until that day arrives, cops will be on edge and many trigger happy...:dirol:
I wouldn't say "trigger happy". I think these cops lack training for this and are under a much different stress than they've ever experienced.
Some are feeling vulnerable for the first time since putting the badge on.
I would say they lack trigger discipline and are purely unable to physically handle the stress of the current situation.*
*Speaking only about the officers involved in the negligent shootings.
when is comes down to it, we are all on the same side.
If you disagree, by all means voice your opinion, but try to do it agreeably without tearing other gun owners down.
Are you referring to the 7 cops who opened fire on the Tacoma or the one opened fire on the Honda? No one was judging an entire profession.
EXACTLY!
No one is judging ALL cops. No one said lets have all cops taken off duty, because none of them can handle this strain.
Personally, I WILL judge trigger happy bozos who open fire on unarmed old ladies, or any other non-combatant, and in my judgement, they should be removed from the force, criminally charged and found incompetent. If I were a cop, I would be embarrassed to be associated with the cops in question here. I would write these idiots off as incompetent fools and distance myself from them. Is there really anyway to defend their actions?
Voodoo_Man
02-10-13, 10:59
EXACTLY!
No one is judging ALL cops. No one said lets have all cops taken off duty, because none of them can handle this strain.
Personally, I WILL judge trigger happy bozos who open fire on unarmed old ladies, or any other non-combatant, and in my judgement, they should be removed from the force, criminally charged and found incompetent. If I were a cop, I would be embarrassed to be associated with the cops in question here. I would write these idiots off as incompetent fools and distance myself from them. Is there really anyway to defend their actions?
You are still talking about a situation you, nor anyone else here, have any direct knowledge of other than news media.
Making a statement, like the one you did, based solely on possibly false information is not going "win" any arguments, anywhere.
Also, saying things like "no one is judging all cops" then "if I were a cop" does not aid in your point, it simply shows that you are jumping to conclusions and painting with a broad brush.
Less speculation, more facts.
You are still talking about a situation you, nor anyone else here, have any direct knowledge of other than news media.
Making a statement, like the one you did, based solely on possibly false information is not going "win" any arguments, anywhere.
Also, saying things like "no one is judging all cops" then "if I were a cop" does not aid in your point, it simply shows that you are jumping to conclusions and painting with a broad brush.
Less speculation, more facts.
Fair enough. You are correct. I'm not anti LE. I have friends and family that are LE. My instructors are LE. My comments are a result of my sympathy for THEM. This situation does not LOOK good from what we do know. My imagination is having a difficult time coming up with a reasonable explanation for what happened in these two situations.
I retract my "bozo" insult, until more facts are known and apologize for any offense taken. I still stand by my sentiment of supporting the REST of law enforcement who are not out there making seemingly bad decisions.
Most agencies will likely frown on this as a routine practice, but in some neighborhoods or situations, this can be fairly common. Pointing it at someone is another story altogether.
Like someone else above me alluded to, my preference would be handgun holstered, hand to grip, with most or all of the retention defeated. But, I don't fault this guy for having it out and low (finger off trigger, pointed away from occupants, btw). I've used this tactic on many occasions, and yes, if I was the contact officer for a roadblock, looking for an armed suspect with police and military experience, who has killed, and threatens to continue this course of action, I could (within my department policy, state statute and training standards, and personal choice) justify having the gun out and low.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-13, 11:16
Fair enough. You are correct. I'm not anti LE. I have friends and family that are LE. My instructors are LE. My comments are a result of my sympathy for THEM. This situation does not LOOK good from what we do know. My imagination is having a difficult time coming up with a reasonable explanation for what happened in these two situations.
I retract my "bozo" insult, until more facts are known and apologize for any offense taken. I still stand by my sentiment of supporting the REST of law enforcement who are not out there making seemingly bad decisions.
I was not trying to "put you in your place" or anything of that sort, just pointing out the most obvious.
A situation may not look good, and this one does not, but we were not there, we did not react and we do not have all the info. I do not know how logically anyone can make any sort of rational opinion based on the facts we do not know and the hearsay we do.
You would agree that it is fair to say that no one is looking to make any bad decisions, correct? The issue is however, especially in LE, there are often times less than a fraction of second to make those decisions and everyone, especially the general public, lawyers and media, have all the time in the world to QB on it. The standard in court for an officers actions are not of what a reasonable person would do in this situation, it is what would a reasonable officer do in that specific moment with the specific information that officer had at that very moment.
I wonder how many here would have shot up that pickup truck...I imagine the numbers would be disturbing.
Its okay. Im not opposed to being put in my place when I deserve it. I did not read all the the way to the end of the thread before posting, and that was a mistake.
I can speak for no one else, but I would not be counted among any of the group that might have shot up that pick up truck. I have been tested this way many times in many situations, and each time I exercised appropriate restraint in not opening fire when I shouldn't.
I understand and appreciate your point however, and I am completely finished with my arm chair quarterbacking. I will reserve further comment until more facts come to light.
You know what, nevermind...
To Jim D and a bunch of others: I guess there are no lanes in GD but some of you are seriously out of yours. If you aren't a law enforcement officer, why the **** are you giving advice on when one should have their weapon system drawn? My le knowledge, at the moment, comes from the academic side (academy) and from buddies who have gone le. There is a difference in how you handle a known vs an unknown risk stop in both the real world and academically. If you haven't been there, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing.
This is one of my concerns going into le. My work in the past would occasionally come under the microscope but those reviewing my actions came from a position of experience. With local le, everything is put under the microscope. Not only those investigating will make judgements (hopefully apolitically) but every numbnuts in an armchair (some m4c folks today) will be making judgements before any kind of official review/investigation is completed.
Seriously, you guys were not there. These incidents will be reviewed and then we can have a discussion on potential improvements to TTP's and training (and hopefully not the knee jerk kind of changes).
You are allowed to have your completely uninformed opinions but know that they are worth exactly zero. As for a conversation on LE tactics, If you are not/were not le, giving advice on when/how a leo should draw his gun is seriously out of your lane.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-13, 11:56
@sboza, any LE academy does an okay, at best, job at preparing an officer for street work. Nothing comes close to actual on the street experience dealing with the public, no book, no episode of cops of law&order, no war stories, nothing else. That is a difficult pill for many to swallow because they have no way of connecting with the actions of a particular officer in a specific event and therefore revert to their own personal understanding of the events. They go back to some episode on television that had similar circumstances or go to case law - as if case law dictates exactly what LE is supposed to do on the street to the letter (it does not).
The simply fact is that real-life police work, on the street, is often times drastically different than what many people perceive it to be and from that there is a disconnect that we see in this thread.
How about applying the same suspicions of media bias, selective reporting, pandering, and shoddy research as we all do in the other GD threads (especially the 2A ones) to the reports regarding the recent OISs in SoCal?
I'm not defending them or condemning them, but despite how bad the photo of the shot out Tacoma looks (and is, I'll definitely agree to that), I can think of some mitigating potential factors that can help explain, but not excuse, the incident.
To Jim D and a bunch of others: I guess there are no lanes in GD but some of you are seriously out of yours. If you aren't a law enforcement officer, why the **** are you giving advice on when one should have their weapon system drawn? My le knowledge, at the moment, comes from the academic side (academy) and from buddies who have gone le. There is a difference in how you handle a known vs an unknown risk stop in both the real world and academically. If you haven't been there, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing.
This is one of my concerns going into le. My work in the past would occasionally come under the microscope but those reviewing my actions came from a position of experience. With local le, everything is put under the microscope. Not only those investigating will make judgements (hopefully apolitically) but every numbnuts in an armchair (some m4c folks today) will be making judgements before any kind of official review/investigation is completed.
Seriously, you guys were not there. These incidents will be reviewed and then we can have a discussion on potential improvements to TTP's and training (and hopefully not the knee jerk kind of changes).
You are allowed to have your completely uninformed opinions but know that they are worth exactly zero. As for a conversation on LE tactics, If you are not/were not le, giving advice on when/how a leo should draw his gun is seriously out of your lane.
sboza, I work with LE daily, visiting departments, outfitting them with rifles, holsters, flashbangs, body armor, etc... I've also participated in a variety of scenario training with different agencies/ customers... I have a better glimpse than most.
The training that many of us have undertaken with firearms, use of force as well as tactics, gives many of us the legal and tactical framework for when guns should be in hand, when they should be at the ready, etc.
I can promise you that if you do go into LE, and you start conducting routine traffic stops with your gun drawn... your Chief will be calling you into his office to discuss why his phone keeps ringing.
You can argue that I'm out of my lane, but all I offered was some simple advice that would give the officer the same response time to a threat, while not "startling the horses" quite so much.
The public has the right to question the actions of their public servants. That is what many of us are doing... we are asking if these actions are necessary or not. That doesn't make us anti-LE.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
There seems to be another mistaken identity incident in So-Cal.
Man things aren't looking good down there. Fortunately no one that's innocent has gotten killed yet.
Post deleted. Thread has gone downhill.
A CCW/CHP.. whatever an individual does is not remotely in the same legal framework as what an LEO does. A LEO provides state sanctioned violence.
Armchair QB'ing is useless. Not there, will never know. However, the remnants of the stories in the media suggest individual officers became overwhelmed by events and acted prematurely.
Having been shot up 5x by "friendly" forces, w/o discernible or articulate-able reason, in war zones, I have some idea of the predicament. Substandard performance by junior people scared out of their mind is to be expected. Yes a 20 y/o ASVAB waiver and a beltfed can wreck some crap. It would appear to be a selection, training, and institutional guidance issue for LE agencies involved. Proper personnel selection & realistic scenario based stress inoculation training would go a long way in preventing systemic failures. Of course this would require standards, tough in a government bureaucracy which fears other perception "hot topics" over performance. Fortunately no one was killed. People and property were damaged, I wonder how many millions, in settlement, this will cost the city/ies involved? The undefinable damage is how far the relationship between citizens & their police is strained, and confidence in government eroded.
An agent/officer of government has a long leash and little to no personal liability if acting within proper limits of authorities. This reality would suggest a civil society pay very close attention to the legal construct, limitations and qualifications of state authority.
theblackknight
02-10-13, 15:56
While I think that cops shouldnt be shielded from scrutiny on this forum,
all of you need to get off your high horse in regards to the whole " they just don't have the training" herp derp. If you're such a ****ing stud with a glock, why don't you get to an academy (not to be confused with academi) and strap on a badge and belt yourself. Get real, firearms training is some thing of a enjoyable hobby for most here, something you'd do regardless of where you clock in everyday. Its the same reason dentists actually floss twice a day, and pro driver puts z rated tires on his "beater".
sent from mah gun,using my sights
An Undocumented Worker
02-10-13, 16:45
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
There seems to be another mistaken identity incident in So-Cal.
Man things aren't looking good down there. Fortunately no one that's innocent has gotten killed yet.
That was the guy in the Black Honda Ridgeline that got rammed and shot at.
Maybe it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, but since the L.A Times and others are so big to report about these shootings I wish they would report all the facts. Like the fact that the 2 women driving the truck are both illegals and don't have drivers licenses.
They also failed to stop after being lit up with a spotlight and sped towards the officers that were protecting one of the targets (after they panicked) which is part of what led up to the incident. It was the "perfect storm" so to speak.
Darwin days for those that have a f*ck the police attitude in SoCal.
PA PATRIOT
02-10-13, 17:25
Maybe it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, but since the L.A Times and others are so big to report about these shootings I wish they would report all the facts. Like the fact that the 2 women driving the truck are both illegals and don't have drivers licenses.
They also failed to stop after being lit up with a spotlight and sped towards the officers that were protecting one of the targets (after they panicked) which is part of what led up to the incident. It was the "perfect storm" so to speak.
Shines a bit of light on the shooting then whats been released so far, while I will not comment on the shooting its self I believe discretion should be used by all about commenting on same until the finial investigation is released on a PIA request.
We were not there and we do not know what really happened so speculation does nothing other then cause meaningless posts on the subject.
This information really needs to get out there:
Maybe it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, but since the L.A Times and others are so big to report about these shootings I wish they would report all the facts. Like the fact that the 2 women driving the truck are both illegals and don't have drivers licenses.
They also failed to stop after being lit up with a spotlight and sped towards the officers that were protecting one of the targets (after they panicked) which is part of what led up to the incident. It was the "perfect storm" so to speak.
It can't because "officially" it is still under review. There were other circumstances as well and they lend even more to the story. If the entire issue came out, then I am sure that the shootings would be seen in a much different light.
This information really needs to get out there:
threeheadeddog
02-10-13, 18:18
To the original topic and pic.
For those that have seen my post its should be obvious that while definately not anti-leo I am anti-athoritarian. I also have a big issue with checkpoints especially ones that have a broad purpose that is basically just "fishing" with no real intent except to "find" violations.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. There is a very clear reason for the checkpoint. There is a very clear reason for the danger.
I have very strong feelings about leo's being able to point there weapons at people without being held to the same standards in reguard with threatening a life.
THIS IS NOT THAT CASE EITHER. That leo has his firearme in a safe, ready position(not to be confused with some "safe-ready" position, if such a thing exists lol). His firearme is not flagging anyone his finger is straight...basically he is holding the thing EXACTLY like I do when I am answereing the door. This makes sense because, like when I am answering the door, he is in a position where there is possibly a threat but not likely and due to the circumstance he is at a disadvantage with reguards to action/reaction.
Maybe it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, but since the L.A Times and others are so big to report about these shootings I wish they would report all the facts. Like the fact that the 2 women driving the truck are both illegals and don't have drivers licenses.
They also failed to stop after being lit up with a spotlight and sped towards the officers that were protecting one of the targets (after they panicked) which is part of what led up to the incident. It was the "perfect storm" so to speak.
I agree, but waiting lacks sensationalism and takes this thing called integrity. And let's be honest here, we want to blame the media, but it isn't just them. The public was out to hang these guys as well. Look through forums on the internet, including this one, and take notice of the number of people that were ready to hang these officers even though none of us had anything other than the minimum amount of facts.
Maybe it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, but since the L.A Times and others are so big to report about these shootings I wish they would report all the facts. Like the fact that the 2 women driving the truck are both illegals and don't have drivers licenses.
They also failed to stop after being lit up with a spotlight and sped towards the officers that were protecting one of the targets (after they panicked) which is part of what led up to the incident. It was the "perfect storm" so to speak.
I loathe to be one to defend illegals, but in this case it is irrelevant as the police didn't know they were illegals. It could have been many anything.
And that is why I think they needed a more credible threat than "furtive movements" to light up an occupied vehicle with unidentified occupants. Or speeding towards the area of an incident or other officers.
Obviously the problem of "illegals" compounds law enforcement efforts DAILY and this is just one of the many, many reasons they SHOULD NOT BE IN THE COUNTRY AT ALL.
But nobody seems willing to do ANYTHING about "illegals" many jurisdictions even refuse to arrest them when detected so unfortunately it is part of the law enforcement landscape which must be accepted and factored in to every situation.
If this had been a couple high school kids with a bag of weed who "panicked" I don't think there would be the same efforts to provide perspective and justify the situation.
Now I absolutely and completely understand LEOs DO NOT WANT TO BE SHOT. But just as there are rules and limitations placed on us regarding the manner that we may legally protect ourselves, there are rules and regulations placed on LEOs regarding the manner they may protect themselves.
And I'm pretty sure if a CA citizen who had a person actively trying to murder them mistakenly fired into a occupied vehicle believing it was that person the outcome would be very, very different.
GeorgiaBoy
02-10-13, 18:56
This information really needs to get out there:
But the information does not justify anything. You still don't light up a truck because it doesn't stop when you shine a blinding spotlight at it.
But the information does not justify anything. You still don't light up a truck because it doesn't stop when you shine a blinding spotlight at it.
Good lord now I know the end has come. GB and I have the same opinion.
threeheadeddog
02-10-13, 19:10
----------
But the information does not justify anything. You still don't light up a truck because it doesn't stop when you shine a blinding spotlight at it.
Good lord now I know the end has come. GB and I have the same opinion.
In a similar vein to this threat it reminds of the video one the members on here posted of the CLEO coming out and proclaiming that guns are not defense tools but are intended primarily for offensive use during the discharge of an officer's duty. Yup, great rationale there. Perhaps relevant here. Hopefully all of the info comes out and the incident(s) can be looked at objectively.
I do not recall which member posted it initially tho.
threeheadeddog
02-10-13, 19:12
I'm glad I'm not this trucker.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LAcophunt_zpsa462ffce.jpg
"officer if you dont mind could I please but put in the back of a car for the duration of this stop"
I think it would be safer:dirol:
GeorgiaBoy
02-10-13, 19:20
Good lord now I know the end has come. GB and I have the same opinion.
Well at least we finally found some kind of common ground.
As I stated. There are other facts and a timeline that occurred and once the facts come out I think people will at least understand how it could happen and it will make more sense.
But the information does not justify anything. You still don't light up a truck because it doesn't stop when you shine a blinding spotlight at it.
GeorgiaBoy
02-10-13, 21:29
As I stated. There are other facts and a timeline that occurred and once the facts come out I think people will at least understand how it could happen and it will make more sense.
I think everyone "understands how it happened". Several cops jittery because of the situation saw a "suspicious truck" that happened to be the same color as the suspects truck in the neighborhood they were watching. They shined a blinding spotlight on it and when the driver obviously freaked out and didn't stop, they decided to light it up from behind with 25+ shots until it stopped, and turned out to be two women delivering news papers.
Though I'm sure you mean understand how, in the cop's shoes, that it would happen. I still beg to disagree. Any cop that should be a cop should have the common sense that you simply don't shoot at a vehicle because it didn't stop when you spotlighted it. That is completely wrong no way you put it. It's not "understandable" because it simply should not happen. Understandable implies that an act was/is "expected or accepted under the circumstances". But the actions by the officers that night were neither expected or should be accepted as the circumstances simply didn't warrant them.
The only circumstances I can think of that would make it justifiable or even understandable would be:
a) The occupants of the vehicle opened fire on the officers.
b) The driver charged the officers with the vehicle.
To be fair, I know what you are trying to get at IG. But with the facts we currently know I see no reason to agree with you that the actions can be interpreted as being in some form understandable or expected.
[QUOTE=GeorgiaBoy;1542864]I think everyone "understands how it happened". Several cops jittery because of the situation saw a "suspicious truck" that happened to be the same color as the suspects truck in the neighborhood they were watching. They shined a blinding spotlight on it and when the driver obviously freaked out and didn't stop, they decided to light it up from behind with 25+ shots until it stopped, and turned out to be two women delivering news papers.
Though I'm sure you mean understand how, in the cop's shoes, that it would happen. I still beg to disagree. Any cop that should be a cop should have the common sense that you simply don't shoot at a vehicle because it didn't stop when you spotlighted it. That is completely wrong no way you put it. It's not "understandable" because it simply should not happen. Understandable implies that an act was/is "expected or accepted under the circumstances". But the actions by the officers that night were neither expected or should be accepted as the circumstances simply didn't warrant them.
The only circumstance I can think of that would make it justifiable or even understandable would be:
a) The occupant of the vehicle opened fire on the officers.
b) The driver charged the officers with the vehicle.
Excellent post.
Actually you don't understand, but that's OK. I stick by my statement and I think when ALL the facts come out (assuming they do) then it will be clearer to everyone who wants to second guess.
I think everyone "understands how it happened". Several cops jittery because of the situation saw a "suspicious truck" that happened to be the same color as the suspects truck in the neighborhood they were watching. They shined a blinding spotlight on it and when the driver obviously freaked out and didn't stop, they decided to light it up from behind with 25+ shots until it stopped, and turned out to be two women delivering news papers.
Though I'm sure you mean understand how, in the cop's shoes, that it would happen. I still beg to disagree. Any cop that should be a cop should have the common sense that you simply don't shoot at a vehicle because it didn't stop when you spotlighted it. That is completely wrong no way you put it. It's not "understandable" because it simply should not happen. Understandable implies that an act was/is "expected or accepted under the circumstances". But the actions by the officers that night were neither expected or should be accepted as the circumstances simply didn't warrant them.
The only circumstances I can think of that would make it justifiable or even understandable would be:
a) The occupants of the vehicle opened fire on the officers.
b) The driver charged the officers with the vehicle.
To be fair, I know what you are trying to get at IG. But with the facts we currently know I see no reason to agree with you that the actions can be interpreted as being in some form understandable or expected.
GeorgiaBoy
02-10-13, 23:10
nevermind.
As I stated. There are other facts and a timeline that occurred and once the facts come out I think people will at least understand how it could happen and it will make more sense.
I can understand how LOTS of thing happen. Finding them acceptable is another matter. I accept there may be extenuating circumstances, but it is also possible that the officers in question were the one's that panicked.
I'm kind of with Airhasz on this one. The only acceptable "shoot" situations are if:
a) The occupant of the vehicle opened fire on the officers.
b) The driver charged the officers with the vehicle.
And if the driver actually charged the officers using a vehicle as a weapon I'm certain that would have been reported so I sorta doubt it went down that way.
Again, I think everyone who finds it "understandable" would feel differently if it was their family in the vehicle and they "panicked after being spotlighted" but never directly threatened any of the officers.
And of course if any of us did something like that in a defensive situation we'd be in jail.
In a "good shoot" situation I'm 100% in support of LE, they are the "good guys" and I have no sympathy for the "bad guys." But just as I have to be careful who, what and where I shoot when I feel threatened...so do they.
PA PATRIOT
02-11-13, 00:19
Once again more G/D talking heads who do not have a clue of what ACTUALLY happen with this shooting are quick to Monday Night Quarterback a incident before all the facts are disclosed.
Everyone is basing opinions on local news reports? Really? After all the misleading and flat out wrong information that we have all seen/heard/read in the news on other high profile incidents one would think members here would learn to wait until creditable sources release information on the investigation before passing judgment.
IG said there is more to this shooting then what has been released but some no matter what they are told are willing to condemn the officers without once again all the facts being released.
IG - I think you got to let this one go for now brother. Too many folks here who have never spent any amount of time in harm's way (not just le) but have their opinion on the actions of those that do. They are using logic without any actual experience and they believe that because it "makes sense," that's the way things should work. You will go insane trying to argue with them.
I have always given the benefit of the doubt to folks until a fair review is complete. And I have always been given that courtesy but I know that going conus in local le I will have to accept that these people exist and will always be there to monday morning quarterback.
That they weren't there doesn't mean anything to them because they don't understand how much of a difference that makes. And yes, for the armchair warriors, if you weren't there, you need to wait for an investigation to be conducted before your opinions have any value. But like they say, "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one."
In a similar vein to this threat it reminds of the video one the members on here posted of the CLEO coming out and proclaiming that guns are not defense tools but are intended primarily for offensive use during the discharge of an officer's duty. Yup, great rationale there. Perhaps relevant here. Hopefully all of the info comes out and the incident(s) can be looked at objectively.
I do not recall which member posted it initially tho.
That statement was made by CA Police Chief Ken James. He said, quote:
"One issue that always boggles my mind is that, the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth; a gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner, and face any opposition that we may come upon."
Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P1fhw_OcdPM#t=391s)
PA Patriot and Sboza,
Could either of you two come up with some sort of hypothetical situation that would justify the action taken by the officers in this case, based on the limited facts that we do have? Since some of us are not LE and have not been in harms way during the course of our chosen profession (although some of us have been in harms way outside of the military or our chosen profession), it would be great of you to enlighten us with a plausible explanation. I realize none of us were there, so I'm not asking for an actual explanation, just something plausible for the sake of discussion. Help me to understand what I do not, due to my obvious lack of experience in this arena.
Also, I have seen the question posed several times now, but not answered. I'll make it more personal: I have, in the past, had death threats made against me by unstable people who had the means, motivation, and ability to carry out the threat. If I had shot at a car with two unarmed innocents because of their behavior and the cars resemblance to the car of the person who threatened to kill me, would it be reasonable to assume that I could explain and justify my actions and not be charged with a crime? If one of you were on duty and rolled up on such a scene, is there an explanation I could offer you that would NOT lead to me being cuffed and in the back of your car?
I'm curious, IG and PA Patriot, speaking hypothetically, what facts could be released that would completely exonerate the officers involved in shooting the Tacoma?
I reviewed the LAPD use of deadly force policy before posting this...
Hypothetically speaking, the only facts I could see that would have justified that level of force based on the LAPD's own policy are
1). If the occupants of the Tacoma presented a threat of death or grevious bodily injury to the officers
2). Presented the same threat to a member of the public
Or
3). Their escape could reasonably result in 1 or 2
Nothing we've heard indicates 1 or 2 occurred (under no legal standard i am familiar with is driving a vehicle down a street in the direction of someone's house justification for the use of deadly force)....so the only thing justifiable would be that the officers reasonably believed the occupant was Dorner....even in that circumstance, officers are to avoid using deadly force that could injure bystanders....based on the number of rounds that impacted surrounding homes I'm not sure they did that...
So the question will become if a reasonable police officer, under the same circumstances, would have believed the occupant(s) were Dorner, and even given that assumption, acted appropriately...
Even if the actions of the officers were understandable by many, me included, I'm not sure it's possible to classify them as reasonable or appropriate
Moose-Knuckle
02-11-13, 02:48
Hypothetically speaking, the only facts I could see that would have justified that level of force based on the LAPD's own policy are
1). If the occupants of the Tacoma presented a threat of death or grevious bodily injury to the officers
This is more than likely how this particular shooting incident will conclude; officers opened fire on the truck once they perceived the occupants in the Tacoma as a threat when they attempted to run down fellow officers. Whether by accident do to panicking or with full intent to cause death and or serious bodily injury will be deemed inconsequential.
This is a cluster **** of the highest order and will damage community relations and public trust for years to come. I fully expect to see headlines along this line in coming days: Racist Cops Hunting Down African-American Suspect Shoots Undocumented Hispanic Immigrates. Los Angeles has been the hot bed of racial contention since forever (Watts, Rodney King, OJ, etc.) this has the potential of going sideways fast.
IG - I think you got to let this one go for now brother. Too many folks here who have never spent any amount of time in harm's way (not just le) but have their opinion on the actions of those that do. They are using logic without any actual experience and they believe that because it "makes sense," that's the way things should work. You will go insane trying to argue with them.
So now we're not professional enough to understand?
I've been in more weapons drawn situations than some cops I know. Does that mean those cops also "just can't understand"?
This is a cluster **** of the highest order and will damage community relations and public trust for years to come. I fully expect to see headlines along this line in coming days: Racist Cops Hunting Down African-American Suspect Shoots Undocumented Hispanic Immigrates. Los Angeles has been the hot bed of racial contention since forever (Watts, Rodney King, OJ, etc.) this has the potential of going sideways fast.
Yeah, I think all of this has the potential to cause a repeat of Rodney King.
I hate large cities. Glad I don't live in one.
Honestly I am giving up at this point. One word that I learned long ago that has an impact on our actions is PERCEPTION. Everyone perceives things differently.
Look at the highlighted section below. In fact if I am not mistaken that vehicle was also fired at from the front as well. There were in fact officers and vehicles to the front of that Toyota when the incident happened.
But, since I have no dog in this fight and people seem to think that I am condoning their actions I am stepping aside.
I don't believe that I said I condoned anything. What I did say is that I understand how it could happen and given the timeline of events with ambush on the Riverside LEO's and the LAPD personnel I do see how this happened.
I can understand how LOTS of thing happen. Finding them acceptable is another matter. I accept there may be extenuating circumstances, but it is also possible that the officers in question were the one's that panicked.
I'm kind of with Airhasz on this one. The only acceptable "shoot" situations are if:
a) The occupant of the vehicle opened fire on the officers.
b) The driver charged the officers with the vehicle.
And if the driver actually charged the officers using a vehicle as a weapon I'm certain that would have been reported so I sorta doubt it went down that way.
Again, I think everyone who finds it "understandable" would feel differently if it was their family in the vehicle and they "panicked after being spotlighted" but never directly threatened any of the officers.
And of course if any of us did something like that in a defensive situation we'd be in jail.
In a "good shoot" situation I'm 100% in support of LE, they are the "good guys" and I have no sympathy for the "bad guys." But just as I have to be careful who, what and where I shoot when I feel threatened...so do they.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-13, 06:44
From what I can tell there are some here who simply think about things from their point of view and not from the point of view of those officers at the time/place this occurred. That is the only way to do so logically. You cannot put yourself in their shoes and think about what you would have done, that is very subjective and bias, you have to put yourself in their shoes and take the informantion you have at the time and go from there.
Furthermore, like many LE on here I have been unfortunate enough to have been working when a LEO was gunned down and the suspect was on the loose, twice. Both times was a complete cluster**** and information was either reliable or not, thinking back on those events I am very surprised no one was shot in this manner.
Itis very difficult to explain without experiencing it for yourself.
Edit: again, I am not for or against these officers actions, as I stated previously, taking a position without knowing all the facts is not logical.
[QUOTE=sboza;1543053]IG - I think you got to let this one go for now brother. Too many folks here who have never spent any amount of time in harm's way (not just le) but have their opinion on the actions of those that do. They are using logic without any actual experience and they believe that because it "makes sense," that's the way things should work. You will go insane trying to argue with them.
YOU JUST DESCRIBED A JURY
PA Patriot and Sboza,
Could either of you two come up with some sort of hypothetical situation that would justify the action taken by the officers in this case, based on the limited facts that we do have? Since some of us are not LE and have not been in harms way during the course of our chosen profession (although some of us have been in harms way outside of the military or our chosen profession), it would be great of you to enlighten us with a plausible explanation. I realize none of us were there, so I'm not asking for an actual explanation, just something plausible for the sake of discussion. Help me to understand what I do not, due to my obvious lack of experience in this arena.
The possibility exists that the occupants of the Tacoma drove toward officers after units attempted to stop their vehicle. It is very possible that a reasonable officer would see this as a threat on their life if the Tacoma suddenly accelerated in their direction. Until this scenario has been eliminated as a possibility, it is premature to assign blame for this OIS. With any luck, it should not be too difficult to investigate this possibility and we should soon have some answers.
The possibility exists that the occupants of the Tacoma drove toward officers after units attempted to stop their vehicle. It is very possible that a reasonable officer would see this as a threat on their life if the Tacoma suddenly accelerated in their direction. Until this scenario has been eliminated as a possibility, it is premature to assign blame for this OIS. With any luck, it should not be too difficult to investigate this possibility and we should soon have some answers.
And if the answers are not to their liking, a claim of cover up will shortly follow. :neo:
TacMedic556
02-11-13, 09:35
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
I just hope their Drone is NOT armed. They shoot at innocent people twice thinking it is him and ram another car thinking it is him, we don't need them shooting missiles or anything...thinking it is him.
MountainRaven
02-11-13, 09:56
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
I just hope their Drone is NOT armed. They shoot at innocent people twice thinking it is him and ram another car thinking it is him, we don't need them shooting missiles or anything...thinking it is him.
I do not think Customs (or DHS) has armed drones. I assume that since the source for the story is CBP that it is a CBP (or other DHS) drone and not a DoD or CIA drone.
(Hey, MSN, do I SOS or LOL? /capitol steps)
NCPatrolAR
02-11-13, 10:06
Can the tinfoil and stay on topic
Think about how hard it is to stay completely off the grid when LE is looking this hard for you and your pic is out there (not to mention you are a 250+ lb black guy).
There are only a few plausible options:
- He's holed up somewhere (but will eventually have to come out)
- He's already dead and they just haven't found his body yet
- He's getting help.
The possibility exists that the occupants of the Tacoma drove toward officers after units attempted to stop their vehicle. It is very possible that a reasonable officer would see this as a threat on their life if the Tacoma suddenly accelerated in their direction. Until this scenario has been eliminated as a possibility, it is premature to assign blame for this OIS. With any luck, it should not be too difficult to investigate this possibility and we should soon have some answers.
The timeline I saw, given by the Chief of the LAPD, had the Tacoma fired upon first by one source, officers near the protected house, and then when it drove "towards officers" it was fired upon further by other officers...
Again, as has been repeatedly stated, we don't have all the facts, but that was the timeline given by the Chief of the LAPD to the LA Times....based on what I read when I saw that, my interpretation was that the vehicle was fired upon before it ever drove towards any officers...
MountainRaven
02-11-13, 11:45
On the OP photo:
Am I the only one who thought of the traffic stop with the pick up truck in End of Watch on seeing that photo? I don't recall thinking that "these cops are going to kill someone (in an unjustified shooting)". Did anybody else?
The timeline I saw, given by the Chief of the LAPD, had the Tacoma fired upon first by one source, officers near the protected house, and then when it drove "towards officers" it was fired upon further by other officers...
That might explain all the tires being flat.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-13, 15:11
That might explain all the tires being flat.
Would also explain why it was "lit up."
platoonDaddy
02-11-13, 17:59
What I really like is the offer the Chief of Police made to pay for a rental car for the 2nd victim. The women in the other incident have been offered a new car.
If a serial killer armed with a shot gun busted your home door down and you engaged him with a gun and a stray bullet went through an outside wall, bounced off a street pole, traveled 200 yds and then struck the invaders getaway driver in the ass, the authorities would have you up on charges of reckless endangerment and attempted murder.
What I really like is the offer the Chief of Police made to pay for a rental car for the 2nd victim. The women in the other incident have been offered a new car.
If a serial killer armed with a shot gun busted your home door down and you engaged him with a gun and a stray bullet went through an outside wall, bounced off a street pole, traveled 200 yds and then struck the invaders getaway driver in the ass, the authorities would have you up on charges of reckless endangerment and attempted murder.
And when extrapolated this also suggests they knew it was a bad shoot.
And when extrapolated this also suggests they knew it was a bad shoot.
Or they're simply practicing PR, or maybe doing what they could/were authorized to. I assure you that when the City Attorneys get together the offer of compensation will be much higher. But truly I can't understand how the conspiracy theorists keep hanging on to this thread until the rest of the evidence comes in.
I am pretty certain that they would have to prove negligence on your part and I fail to see how they would do so. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the perpetrator would actually be charged under the felony murder rule.
What I really like is the offer the Chief of Police made to pay for a rental car for the 2nd victim. The women in the other incident have been offered a new car.
If a serial killer armed with a shot gun busted your home door down and you engaged him with a gun and a stray bullet went through an outside wall, bounced off a street pole, traveled 200 yds and then struck the invaders getaway driver in the ass, the authorities would have you up on charges of reckless endangerment and attempted murder.
Or they're simply practicing PR, or maybe doing what they could/were authorized to. I assure you that when the City Attorneys get together the offer of compensation will be much higher. But truly I can't understand how the conspiracy theorists keep hanging on to this thread until the rest of the evidence comes in.
That is a possibility certainly. If that is possibly the case I'm sure the national attention this whole ordeal garnered certainly hasn't helped matters any. But unless its standing policy to make such accommodations in all instances their gesture would seem pretty transparent imo.
Not sure if the guy wearing it intended it as humor, as social commentary, or both but the pic is making the rounds:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/Hissyspit%203/141B114E-F837-4D4D-AF89-1D19333A9CA6-11282-0000052C24D25244_zps8abcb770.jpg
If I were a black man who even remotely resembled the Dorner living anywhere in the region, I'd stay inside as much as possible right now considering the current situation.
That's me. Your opinion/mileage may vary.
Not sure if the guy wearing it intended it as humor, as social commentary, or both but the pic is making the rounds:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/Hissyspit%203/141B114E-F837-4D4D-AF89-1D19333A9CA6-11282-0000052C24D25244_zps8abcb770.jpg
NICE TRY!!! We got you now, Chris!
Not sure if the guy wearing it intended it as humor, as social commentary, or both but the pic is making the rounds:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/Hissyspit%203/141B114E-F837-4D4D-AF89-1D19333A9CA6-11282-0000052C24D25244_zps8abcb770.jpg
If I were a black man who even remotely resembled the Dorner living anywhere in the region, I'd stay inside as much as possible right now considering the current situation.
That's me. Your opinion/mileage may vary.
Or maybe he legitimately doesn't want to get shot?
Might be the end of the road (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/authorities-responding-to-big-bear-home-on-report-of-hostage-situation-unknown-if-connected-to-dorner/).
Fish and Game officers Tuesday returned fire at a carjacking suspect who was apparently barricaded in a home in the Angelus Oaks area of Big Bear.
The incident at the home, which is located near Highway 38 and Glass Road, was reported around 12:50 p.m. The San Bernardino Police Department was sending a 12-man tactical team to the scene, but law enforcement was chasing a possible suspect near the location around 1:15 p.m.
It is unknown if the situation is connected to triple-murder suspect Christopher Dorner.
Officials have recovered a rifle and possibly a can of gas.
The alleged suspect reportedly stole a 2008 four-door, white Dodge 4X4 truck. The vehicle is registered to Camp Tahquitz.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department has shut down Highway 38 to create a choke point.
A helicopter was also responding to the scene.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/authorities-responding-to-big-bear-home-on-report-of-hostage-situation-unknown-if-connected-to-dorner/
Two officers have reportedly been shot while pursuing a carjacking and home-invasion suspect in the Angelus Oaks area of Big Bear.
A law enforcement source confirms to the Associated Press that the assailant is triple-murder suspect Christopher Dorner.
Live feed:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/live-video/
Looks like two LEOs down. Sounds like they have got him pinned down in a cabin and surrounded. Exchange of gun fire ongoing.
Might be the end of the road (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/authorities-responding-to-big-bear-home-on-report-of-hostage-situation-unknown-if-connected-to-dorner/).
Who knew our "feathered friends" the fish cops would find the guy. Good for them.
My concern is that in the interests of transparency and community relations, the agencies involved in shooting at people who were not Christopher Dorner, should have a thorough independent investigation conducted and the report released to the public. "Do the right thing" so to speak.
If as IG has suggested, the two illegal immigrants "charged" officers with the truck, would that mean that officers engaging the vehicle from the rear were shooting towards other officers? Or was the vehicle past those officers when engaged from the rear? If so, wasn't the danger of a "charging" vehicle past tense? IIRC, there was an officer who was convicted of manslaughter when it was proven that the lethal round he fired on a "charging" vehicle driver was fired when the vehicle and occupant were past him, thereby negating the danger of a "charging" vehicle.
That is a very complex sequence of events that occurred on the blue Tacoma. We need all the facts before passing judgement, but it is a valid concern whether all the facts will get released to the public as they should.
When looking at the photo of a CHP officer "pointed in" on the tractor trailer door, it's obvious that the driver is between him and the trailer interior. He's in a VERY white environment, trying to visually scan the dark interior of the trailer without a white light. He's in a tactically unsound position, on a slick surface that doesn't lend well to rapid movement and he has a non-combatant between him and the threat area. Need I mention that there's obviously a person taking photos who would be in the line of fire if Dorner was hiding in the trailer being searched? This is all simply atrocious from a tactical standpoint.
There are going to be dozens, if not hundreds of "lessons learned" to come out of this situation. I just pray that more good guys don't go down before it's over. That goes for officers and civilians alike.
Stay safe out there everyone, and think just a moment before doing a dangerous task! :suicide:
NCPatrolAR
02-12-13, 17:56
Cleaning up the Dorner threads
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.