View Full Version : Ohio LE officer shows great restraint when charged repeatedly by a suspected murderer
Ohio police officer shows great restraint while a murder suspect charges at him, placing himself at great risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhJKyK6VqDI
Dispatchers had told Kidder the suspect may threaten suicide by cop and that he could have a gun under his seat, but Kidder relied on his own split-second observations to know what to do.
"So he's got his arms at his side while he's running at me and that's the first thing I noticed," Kidder said as he watched the video. "He put his hand in his pocket there, so my eyes are watching that hand right now and nothing else."
Knowing backup was coming, Kidder back-pedaled while the suspect continued to insist Kidder shoot him.
"I was trying to open a dialogue with him. 'I don't want to shoot you, get on the ground,' but he wasn't having it. He kept repeating, 'Shoot me.' At one point, he said 'Shoot me or I'll shoot you,'" Kidder said.
Then, the suspect charged at Kidder again. Kidder tripped and fell backwards.
"He got towards my face right as I lost balance," Kidder said. "I'm thinking, at this point, that if he goes into attack me, that I'll have to use deadly force to defend myself."
Just in time, backup arrived, and the suspect surrendered.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/officer-i-wanted-to-be-absolutely-sure-before-i-used-deadly-force/32436026
I am glad the guy isn't dead, but how many people are going to point to this situation and say "why can't every deadly force situation be like this?"
If he did not see a weapon and did not shoot, then the officer showed good judgment.
The only issue I have with what I saw in the video was that I thought he should have lowered his pistol when the other officer made contact with the suspect to handcuff him. Pointing his pistol toward the other officer with the adrenaline dump he was experiencing could have made the situation worse.
Eurodriver
04-19-15, 10:37
I bet Kyle Dinkheller wishes he shot Andrew Brannan when Brannan got out of his truck yelling "SHOOT ME!" even though he was unarmed at the time.
Wait, no he doesn't. Kyle is dead.
If he did not see a weapon and did not shoot, then the officer showed good judgment.
The only issue I have with what I saw in the video was that I thought he should have lowered his pistol when the other officer made contact with the suspect to handcuff him. Pointing his pistol toward the other officer with the adrenaline dump he was experiencing could have made the situation worse.
Was the officer justified in using lethal force against the suspect, given the fact that the officer knew the man was a murder suspect, and the perp kept aggressively advancing despite the officers commands to stop, all while placing his right hand in the pocket? Would a reasonable person have feared that the perp was about to inflict serious bodily harm?
Averageman
04-19-15, 13:20
Was the officer justified in using lethal force against the suspect, given the fact that the officer knew the man was a murder suspect, and the perp kept aggressively advancing despite the officers commands to stop, all while placing his right hand in the pocket? Would a reasonable person have feared that the perp was about to inflict serious bodily harm?
I'm pretty sure I would have shot him, I'm not a Cop and I'm certainly not this Cop, but that's a bit more restraint than I'm comfortable with.
Was the officer justified in using lethal force against the suspect, given the fact that the officer knew the man was a murder suspect, and the perp kept aggressively advancing despite the officers commands to stop, all while placing his right hand in the pocket? Would a reasonable person have feared that the perp was about to inflict serious bodily harm?
I'd have shot him.
Averageman
04-19-15, 13:37
I'd have shot him.
Since we are of the same mind on this issue, I have to ask; "Would you want him covering your 6"?
Since we are of the same mind on this issue, I have to ask; "Would you want him covering your 6"?
Nope. However, my opinion is not based only on the decision not to shoot. His lack of command presence that resulted in him fleeing cover while back peddling to the point of falling backwards is what gives me the most heartburn. He needed to commit to a course of action to subdue the suspect as soon as he decided to leave cover under the faith that the suspect was unarmed. Running backwards in front of a suspected violent felon until back-up arrives is not reasonable.
Imagine what people would say if it was a female officer...
I'm sorry, but that cop is an asshole.
Why he didn't drop the guy with a taser is beyond me. This "backpedal and beg" posture will now be held up as what should be the standard response when faced with what very well could be an armed, violent criminal.
Inkslinger
04-19-15, 16:23
That officer might want to look into another line of work. I think anyone advancing in the face of a firearm definitely means to do harm to you. Whether hands in their pockets potentially with a weapon or open hands up, they cannot be allowed to reach you and your weapon. As for using a taser, I think the hand in the pocket throws that option out the window.
I'm sorry, but that cop is an asshole.
Why he didn't drop the guy with a taser is beyond me. This "backpedal and beg" posture will now be held up as what should be the standard response when faced with what very well could be an armed, violent criminal.
That asshole "did two tours of duty in Iraq as a Marine and he's a Purple Heart recipient."
How he's an asshole is beyond me.
Averageman
04-19-15, 16:33
Nope. However, my opinion is not based only on the decision not to shoot. His lack of command presence that resulted in him fleeing cover while back peddling to the pointall of falling backwards is what gives me the most heartburn. He needed to commit to a course of action to subdue the suspect as soon as he decided to leave cover under the faith that the suspect was unarmed. Running backwards in front of a suspected violent felon until back-up arrives is not reasonable.
Again, I would agree. What some might what some might call restraint, I think is more likely uncontrolled hesitation. You have to make a decison, like it or not running backwards isn't a good decison. Likely as not had that guy had a knife and the will to use it, the minute he hesitated and later tripped it very well could have been Bad Guys 1-Cops-0
Inkslinger
04-19-15, 16:35
That asshole "did two tours of duty in Iraq as a Marine and he's a Purple Heart recipient."
How he's an asshole is beyond me.
Maybe some of his past experiences in the military are having a negative effect on him.
I bet Kyle Dinkheller wishes he shot Andrew Brannan when Brannan got out of his truck yelling "SHOOT ME!" even though he was unarmed at the time.
Wait, no he doesn't. Kyle is dead.
You are oversimplifying the Dinkheller incident. Deputy Dinkheller knew for about 35 seconds that Brannan had a weapon, he is telling him to 'put the weapon down' almost until the first shot is fired. Deputy Dinkeller had struck Brannan with a baton and failed to follow-up and complete the arrest, instead letting him retreat back to his (Brannan's) truck. Deputy Dinkheller also fired the first shot of the melee, but unfortunately, it and all the other rounds he fired, save almost the last one, missed.
A lot of issues in the Dinkheller incident, unlike Dinkheller, this Officer can learn from his mistakes.
Personally, I'd like to know the force-on-force/reality-based training histories of officers like Dinkheller who get themselves in situations like this.
Averageman
04-19-15, 16:52
That asshole "did two tours of duty in Iraq as a Marine and he's a Purple Heart recipient."
How he's an asshole is beyond me.
I quit judging Men by the awards they recieved (not earned) when I saw our cry baby Lt, who left his Platoon while under fire get a damned Bronze Star.
I think the asshole thing might be a little overblown, but I wouldn't want him watching my back with multiple bad guys surrounding us.
That was pretty tough to watch.
MountainRaven
04-19-15, 17:05
I'm sorry, but that cop is an asshole.
Why he didn't drop the guy with a taser is beyond me. This "backpedal and beg" posture will now be held up as what should be the standard response when faced with what very well could be an armed, violent criminal.
Perhaps he's not issued a taser.
Not sure if it's the case today, but about ten years ago, local LE weren't required to carry tasers. They could if they wanted (and did the requisite training), but weren't required to do so. OC/pepper spray was a different story.
Never mind the fact that the knowledge of how to defeat a taser is becoming increasingly widespread.
ETA: My MMQB asshole comment is that he should have punched the guy in the face with a weapon-mounted light on his pistol.
NCPatrolAR
04-19-15, 17:08
That was horrible to watch. He needs some remedial DT and firearms training
Pathetic. Some folks just are not cut out to serve in a profession of arms.
That asshole "did two tours of duty in Iraq as a Marine and he's a Purple Heart recipient."
How he's an asshole is beyond me.
I respect his military service as much as I respect McCain for his actions as a POW. I don't think much of McCain these days and I noted my reasons for qualifying this officer.
I think he just put a LOT of cops at risk. "Backpedal and Beg" is not a shining example of LE procedure. I'm glad he didn't have to kill the guy, I just don't know why he didn't resort to a LTL option.
I respect his military service as much as I respect McCain for his actions as a POW. I don't think much of McCain these days and I noted my reasons for qualifying this officer.
I think he just put a LOT of cops at risk. "Backpedal and Beg" is not a shining example of LE procedure. I'm glad he didn't have to kill the guy, I just don't know why he didn't resort to a LTL option.
Precisely. His previous accomplishments are in no way relevant to his inability to perform his duties as a LEO. If he continues this way he'll get someone seriously hurt or killed.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the racial aspect of this. The perp appears to be a white guy. This will be spun by the agitators that if he was black no such restraint would've been used.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the racial aspect of this. The perp appears to be a white guy. This will be spun by the agitators that if he was black no such restraint would've been used.
Might as well add that to the list. I could "almost" understand if a white officer did this with a black suspect out of fear of political ramifications or just out of PR considerations. I fully get that nobody wants to kill a guy on the job, but we damn near have "open season" on cops and this just made it worse.
Might as well add that to the list. I could "almost" understand if a white officer did this with a black suspect out of fear of political ramifications or just out of PR considerations. I fully get that nobody wants to kill a guy on the job, but we damn near have "open season" on cops and this just made it worse.
To take it one step further this may well be held up as the new way a cop should act if confronted in such a manner. Maybe it'll be part of the DoJ's "retraining" of American police forces. "Hey, if a cop can do this for a white guy he surely can do it for a downtrodden minority, right?"
To take it one step further this may well be held up as the new way a cop should act if confronted in such a manner. Maybe it'll be part of the DoJ's "retraining" of American police forces. "Hey, if a cop can do this for a white guy he surely can do it for a downtrodden minority, right?"
Until those body cameras start showing LE deaths.
That was horrible to watch. He needs some remedial DT and firearms training
I didn't get into his approach to the suspect in my original post, only his decision to use or not use deadly force.
I agree that he needs refresher training. I found it difficult to believe he kept retreating and did not use other options on the use of force spectrum. Given the circumstances, if deadly force was not going to be applied, the suspect should have been quickly taken to the ground.
Until those body cameras start showing LE deaths.
Strangely I don't think the Left and the whiners will care about LE deaths.
To take it one step further this may well be held up as the new way a cop should act if confronted in such a manner. Maybe it'll be part of the DoJ's "retraining" of American police forces. "Hey, if a cop can do this for a white guy he surely can do it for a downtrodden minority, right?"
The reporters in the original post link refer to the officer as a "hero."
Forget it, you dudes enjoy your forum. I'm out.
Strangely I don't think the Left and the whiners will care about LE deaths.
Yeah...what's a few cops if it saves ONE black life.
Well your contributions to this country must clearly set the bar for fine Americans, yeah? I'm curious how you view Jesse's military service as an 03 Grunt Marine, with numerous combat awards and citations, as somehow being the same as a traitor whose only military career high points came from having a connected Daddy. Weigh in with your experience, I'll wait.
So I need military experience to criticize someone like Bergdahl? As for Ventura, except for his ridiculous TV show I don't have many criticisms.
The idea that one HAS to be military to recognize right and wrong actions of a former or current member of the military is as ridiculous as former or current military service absolving you of right or wrong actions.
Or to put it in your terms, since those Blackwater guys were "serving" we should have just let them off scott free right? Some of them were probably former military. Who are we to judge?
Yeah...what's a few cops if it saves ONE black life.
LOL! I was going to add something just like that into my previous post.
Averageman
04-19-15, 19:06
Being a good Marine Rifleman doesn't automaticaly make you a good Cop, I can think of a number of reasons why it would be more of a detriment than an asset.
It seems that this thread as devolved from a discussion of the poor tactics (yes, they were poor, no matter how high he stacked the bodies in his former career, those were indeed poor) to the guy's character. I won't say that he fits my definition of an asshole based on this video. What I will say is that those tactics will eventually get him or others around him hurt or worse if he continues to roll those dice enough times.
Someone else in this thread mentioned using the pistol as a blunt force weapon. That would also be poor tactics in my book and a great opportunity for the suspect to disarm the officer once the strike failed to produce the desired affect. Know the purpose of your equipment - a gun is for shooting people, battons are for striking, vehicles are for transportation at work (and occasionally running over the suspect), etc.
Well your contributions to this country must clearly set the bar for fine Americans, yeah? I'm curious how you view Jesse's military service as an 03 Grunt Marine, with numerous combat awards and citations, as somehow being the same as a traitor whose only military career high points came from having a connected Daddy. Weigh in with your experience, I'll wait.
In the meantime, I know this dude and would not hesitate to go back into the fray with him. "Not cut out for a service in arms", yeah it's probably that he's a giant pussy. Right...except that he was a body stackin motherfvcker who would do anything to make sure his guys were doing the right thing the right way. Maybe that's not the same as being a great cop, but you would think he would be more likely to continue killing rather than look for ways to avoid it.
Surely he's not as bad ass as some of the guys who have been to carbine classes who post here, I mean killing people is the same as killing paper. So having experience in that is fairly irrelevent. Okay. So while in pursuit of the suspect, he's told the suspect is wanted for murder charges in two murders, has said he wants to be killed by a cop to avoid going to jail, and when confronted about being possibly armed, chose to run away in his car. As soon as the vehicle stops, suspect in plain view jumps out of the car with open hands saying "shoot me". He never lost positive control of his weapon, backed up knowing units were en route to support him, and NEVER had PID (Positive ID, for those of you who have never had to make sure they were killing the right people day in and out), and assessed the suspect calmly enough to radio dispatch that he wasn't going to kill him because that's the end the suspect wanted.
Well shit, what a pussy right? Only a real coward would wait until they actually felt like their life was in danger to take another. I keep watching it hoping to hear the begging portion of this "Back pedal and Beg" example he's apparently setting. Giving repeated commands to make it very clear on camera and to witnesses that he had to use lethal force IF NEEDED is a pretty standard thing to do, and having the balls to wait until it was needed is far from an ass hole thing to do.
An asshole would probably be the type who jumps on the trigger because he knows he CAN get away with it, not because he needs to. But it doesn't matter anyway, my friend is still alive and doesn't have to live with knowing the guy he shot didn't need to go down. So I'm pretty proud of him. But for those who are the stars in their mental action movies based on no experience, enjoy your opinion I guess.
ETA: He never intended this to be seen by anyone, the video comes from his own privately purchased body camera that he turned in as evidence. His department released the video to the media hoping to get ahead of some of the current tension that has been created by allowing "Officer Safety" become justifiable use of deadly force. This isn't how he would or has handled all incidents or similar incidents, it's how he went about one particular situation on his observations.
Here's the thing. Your friend might be the most badass Marine ever. That isn't the issue here. He may need to go back into the Corps though. A person doesn't need to be a "body stacker" to know this video shows failure on the part of the LEO. Heck, any one with some level of common sense can see that the LEO's willingness to shoot was not present despite being threatened.
Backing up like that is a huge risk for the LEO and can, as we saw, result in him falling. It's been shown that LEO's who keep giving the same command over and over are more likely to get hurt or killed. The bad guy is emboldened by it and sees it as a reluctance of the LEO to do what should be done. It's like the old, "stop or I'll say stop again." It doesn't work. What's worse is the LEO and others who see the video may now get it in their head that it's an appropriate response because this time nobody was hurt.
I promise you this video will be shown in LE training across the country and it will be as an example of what not to do. Your friend is alive because the man in that video wanted for murder let him live - not because of anything he did.
The bottom line is the LEO is lucky and you're a good friend to defend him. But your defense is based on emotion and loyalty - not on proper tactics or training. He screwed up and no amount of combat experience or valor awards will erase that.
Inkslinger
04-19-15, 19:24
SOW I respect the fact that you and the officer in the video bravely served our country. Maybe his reaction in this situation is a direct result of "stacking bodies" as you put it. I'm sure he carries the thought of those bodies with him everyday. Killing another human being is not something that is natural in this stage of human development. There is no instruction manual for dealing with it. He can be viewed as having restraint and a high value for human life in this video. He can also be viewed as being shook. It worked out in this instance. It might not in the next. I'm sure that law enforcement is a logical step from infantrymen. It might not be the right step though.
It seems that this thread as devolved from a discussion of the poor tactics (yes, they were poor, no matter how high he stacked the bodies in his former career, those were indeed poor) to the guy's character. I won't say that he fits my definition of an asshole based on this video. What I will say is that those tactics will eventually get him or others around him hurt or worse if he continues to roll those dice enough times.
Someone else in this thread mentioned using the pistol as a blunt force weapon. That would also be poor tactics in my book and a great opportunity for the suspect to disarm the officer once the strike failed to produce the desired affect. Know the purpose of your equipment - a gun is for shooting people, battons are for striking, vehicles are for transportation at work (and occasionally running over the suspect), etc.
I should probably clarify. He's probably a nice guy. Maybe too nice a guy for this line of work. Again, I think his actions, or lack of, put others at risk.
NCPatrolAR
04-19-15, 19:47
I don't care who knows who; the insults are over now. That goes for both sides of the conversation. Keep the discussion about tactics and associated topics
Being a good Marine Rifleman doesn't automaticaly make you a good Cop, I can think of a number of reasons why it would be more of a detriment than an asset.
Our local LE academy recently had a multi-tour combat vet quit because he decided he wasn't able to shoot someone in the line of duty as a cop. Having a military background doesn't mean a person will be a good cop. Many of those skills don't transfer over.
The video scares me. His head wasn't in the fight, he kept retreating while issuing verbals commands to an aggressor who was ignoring his commands and advancing. I can't honestly say if I was in that position I wouldn't have pressed the trigger. I think less-lethal would have been an option in the beginning such as Taser, OC spray or baton. As it progressed the rules changed crossing into a lethal force encounter.
The officer involved has unwittingly established a new standard for how to deal with events like this. His actions will be brought up the next time a cop shoots someone with the media asking, why couldn't it be handled like this case without them knowing he really screwed up.
VooDoo6Actual
04-19-15, 21:23
Citizen shows great restraint from all the Bravo Sierra going on right now.
Our local LE academy recently had a multi-tour combat vet quit because he decided he wasn't able to shoot someone in the line of duty as a cop. Having a military background doesn't mean a person will be a good cop. Many of those skills don't transfer over.
The video scares me. His head wasn't in the fight, he kept retreating while issuing verbals commands to an aggressor who was ignoring his commands and advancing. I can't honestly say if I was in that position I wouldn't have pressed the trigger. I think less-lethal would have been an option in the beginning such as Taser, OC spray or baton. As it progressed the rules changed crossing into a lethal force encounter.
The officer involved has unwittingly established a new standard for how to deal with events like this. His actions will be brought up the next time a cop shoots someone with the media asking, why couldn't it be handled like this case without them knowing he really screwed up.
This is why I am not a fan. It will be brought up next time. If the aggressor had wished to kill that officer he would have. Officers have been killed with a lot less warning then that, and some with more.
If the aggressor had wished to kill that officer he would have.
Yep, he didn't want to kill that officer. He had the opportunity to but didn't take it when the officer ended up on his back.
When the killer, I refuse to use his name, of Kyle Dinkheller was asked why he killed him. The murderer said it was because Dinkheller let him.
Yep, he didn't want to kill that officer. He had the opportunity to but didn't take it when the officer ended up on his back.
When the killer, I refuse to use his name, of Kyle Dinkheller was asked why he killed him. The murderer said it was because Dinkheller let him.
Reaction is slower then action, if he had pulled a gun from his pocket. At best both would have broken the first shot at the same time. But the aggressor more then likely would have fired first by a fraction of a second.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/178.html
There are several studies on this but this is the essay I came across.
Nope. However, my opinion is not based only on the decision not to shoot. His lack of command presence that resulted in him fleeing cover while back peddling to the point of falling backwards is what gives me the most heartburn. He needed to commit to a course of action to subdue the suspect as soon as he decided to leave cover under the faith that the suspect was unarmed. Running backwards in front of a suspected violent felon until back-up arrives is not reasonable.
while I commend the officer's judgement and restraint, he could've protected himself a little better by placing his patrol car between them (instead of backing up).
Also what happend to the use of Tasers?? This is always confuses me why its not used more often. I'm not a LEO, but if a person has not yet presented a visible (key word) weapon but is actively doing something questionable, taser seems to be a good option.
What say the LE's ? What is the S&P for use of taser?
while I commend the officer's judgement and restraint, he could've protected himself a little better by placing his patrol car between them (instead of backing up).
Also what happend to the use of Tasers?? This is always confuses me why its not used more often. I'm not a LEO, but if a person has not yet presented a visible (key word) weapon but is actively doing something questionable, taser seems to be a good option.
What say the LE's ? What is the S&P for use of taser?
He may not have had one. The x26 which the most widely used is also begining to break depending on use and manufacture date. The largest department close to mine doesn't have enough for all the road guys and recently opted not to buy new ones this year. They bought body cameras instead of tasers. So a dwindling supply that is not being replenished. Brass want the newest trending gear sometimes and not what they need.
He could have been this guy, the current aggressor gave far more warnings of a coming attack.
http://youtu.be/MoUUh_N1G1w
I'm probably looking at this incorrectly, because after watching the video again there are a couple of things that jumped out at me:
1) If you are going to maintain the reactionary gap at a suspect moving at you - you need to back up, which this officer did. Moving diagonally or laterally would have perhaps been a slightly better tactic, but not much, at 15 foot the guy just angles his movement mimicking yours. After having the opportunity to watch the video (that 20/20 hindsight thing) it may have been better to play ring-a-round the patrol car.
2) If you are going to transition from handgun to less-lethal (baton/OC/TASER) you need enough time to do so. This can be problematic depending on the type of holster you use, you may not get retention in place for the hand-to-hand you are fixing to get into. For a guy that 'could have a gun under his seat' you probably don't want to do that, that is transition to the less-lethal option.
3) Gun on the video remains steady, two-hand grip looks a little too cup and saucerish to me, but then again, not like he was shaking like a dog pooping peach seeds.
4) Verbals are responsive to what the subject is saying, he doesn't get into a loop per se, and his voice does not convey undo nervousness, isn't shrill or cracking. All in all I'm not seeing panic-stricken. Google Deputy Kyle Dinkheller Videoand listen to his verbal commands - note the difference in tone and inflection.
5) Torso mounted camera does not give us a true perspective of where the weapon was pointed, but based on what I saw, I have little reason to doubt "So he's got his arms at his side while he's running at me and that's the first thing I noticed," Kidder said as he watched the video. "He put his hand in his pocket there, so my eyes are watching that hand right now and nothing else." This point is the riskiest point on the video, I couldn't see finger placement on the weapon, but at this point, the officer is likely going to be slightly ahead of the suspect. He stacks things a little more in his favor by trying to create some distance though out this encounter.
If you have studied how the mind works you understand that our subconscious registers and considers a multitude of factors in situations that we are never consciously aware of. This is called intuition, we ignore it at our peril. Perhaps this officer's experiences have lead him to believe that his intuitions in situations are accurate, and he has learned to trust them, allowing him to make sound decisions.
I honestly don't see that this officer's actions put him in the 'perpetually condition white, SAOAFR' zone in which many of you place him.
Ultimately TR said it best:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
If this officer gets to the fleet and he doesn't have a wingman, he can call me, I'll fly with him. (Top Gunnish)
Reaction is slower then action, if he had pulled a gun from his pocket. At best both would have broken the first shot at the same time. But the aggressor more then likely would have fired first by a fraction of a second.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/178.html
There are several studies on this but this is the essay I came across.
We try to ingrain a set of observations and reactions for officers on vehicle stops. They are - 1) subject opens door, stop approach, 'stay in the car;' 2) subject doesn't obey, continues to exit vehicle, 'Stop, I said stay in the vehicle,' hand placement on the weapon, moving to create reactionary gap and seek cover; 3) if the officer doesn't see both of the subject's hands at some point as the subject places their feet on the ground and begins to exit, the officer draws and challenges, still moving to cover.
When we do force-on-force to positively imprint these clearly articulable steps, we have the driver exiting with a weapon concealed at their side, they stand, raise the gun and engage the officer. What we have found is that an officer following the steps outlined above almost always gets the first shot on the subject.
In essence we are teaching the officer to cycle rapidly through the OODA loop.
while I commend the officer's judgement and restraint, he could've protected himself a little better by placing his patrol car between them (instead of backing up).
Also what happend to the use of Tasers?? This is always confuses me why its not used more often. I'm not a LEO, but if a person has not yet presented a visible (key word) weapon but is actively doing something questionable, taser seems to be a good option.
What say the LE's ? What is the S&P for use of taser?
Man, I'm posting a lot here, LOL.
Generally speaking, with the possibility of a weapon likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the TASER is not a recommended response, unless the officer using the TASER has a lethal-cover officer on scene. In the case we are talking about, based on the dispatch I wouldn't advocate TASER usage for a solo officer.
Problem with the TASER is that it takes two probes making contact to incapacitate. The probes are positioned in the air cartridge directly above one another, with the bottom cartridge oriented at an 8 degree downward angle, this gives a probe spread of about 1 foot for every 7 feet travelled. Cartridge range is 21 to 25 feet, optimal discharge range is around 10 - 15 feet. If the TASER is canted left or right in the officer's hand the bottom cartridge will veer off in that direction, often missing. If a guy is wearing a jacket, or baggy clothing, the probe may imbed in those items without penetrating the body. The TASER may not work due to what we call a 'clothing disconnect' because the probe is too far from the body for the electricity to jump the gap and cause neuro-muscular incapacitation.
In those cases, if the subject has a firearm, you've just brought a discharged TASER to a gunfight.
Properly deployed the TASER has saved hundreds of suspect's lives, and prevented injury to thousands of officers, but it isn't a silver bullet.
Hope this helps.
MountainRaven
04-19-15, 23:32
It seems that this thread as devolved from a discussion of the poor tactics (yes, they were poor, no matter how high he stacked the bodies in his former career, those were indeed poor) to the guy's character. I won't say that he fits my definition of an asshole based on this video. What I will say is that those tactics will eventually get him or others around him hurt or worse if he continues to roll those dice enough times.
Someone else in this thread mentioned using the pistol as a blunt force weapon. That would also be poor tactics in my book and a great opportunity for the suspect to disarm the officer once the strike failed to produce the desired affect. Know the purpose of your equipment - a gun is for shooting people, battons are for striking, vehicles are for transportation at work (and occasionally running over the suspect), etc.
The pistol is in hand and is significantly harder than a fist or an open-palm strike.
An imperfect plan performed rapidly and with violence versus a perfect plan five seconds later and all that.
The pistol is in hand and is significantly harder than a fist or an open-palm strike.
An imperfect plan performed rapidly and with violence versus a perfect plan five seconds later and all that.
There are two issues I can see with using a pistol as an impact weapon.
1) Once you make physical contact between the subject and your firearm, he can take it from you.
2) If you strike the suspect with the firearm and your trigger finger or another object finds it's way inside the trigger guard, a shot will be fired with the muzzle pointed at who knows what.
I suppose one aspect we should be discussing is if the officer would have been justified in the use of deadly force if he did decide to shoot.
I'm probably looking at this incorrectly, because after watching the video again there are a couple of things that jumped out at me:
1) If you are going to maintain the reactionary gap at a suspect moving at you - you need to back up, which this officer did. Moving diagonally or laterally would have perhaps been a slightly better tactic, but not much, at 15 foot the guy just angles his movement mimicking yours. After having the opportunity to watch the video (that 20/20 hindsight thing) it may have been better to play ring-a-round the patrol car.
2) If you are going to transition from handgun to less-lethal (baton/OC/TASER) you need enough time to do so. This can be problematic depending on the type of holster you use, you may not get retention in place for the hand-to-hand you are fixing to get into. For a guy that 'could have a gun under his seat' you probably don't want to do that, that is transition to the less-lethal option.
3) Gun on the video remains steady, two-hand grip looks a little too cup and saucerish to me, but then again, not like he was shaking like a dog pooping peach seeds.
4) Verbals are responsive to what the subject is saying, he doesn't get into a loop per se, and his voice does not convey undo nervousness, isn't shrill or cracking. All in all I'm not seeing panic-stricken. Google Deputy Kyle Dinkheller Videoand listen to his verbal commands - note the difference in tone and inflection.
5) Torso mounted camera does not give us a true perspective of where the weapon was pointed, but based on what I saw, I have little reason to doubt "So he's got his arms at his side while he's running at me and that's the first thing I noticed," Kidder said as he watched the video. "He put his hand in his pocket there, so my eyes are watching that hand right now and nothing else." This point is the riskiest point on the video, I couldn't see finger placement on the weapon, but at this point, the officer is likely going to be slightly ahead of the suspect. He stacks things a little more in his favor by trying to create some distance though out this encounter.
If you have studied how the mind works you understand that our subconscious registers and considers a multitude of factors in situations that we are never consciously aware of. This is called intuition, we ignore it at our peril. Perhaps this officer's experiences have lead him to believe that his intuitions in situations are accurate, and he has learned to trust them, allowing him to make sound decisions.
I honestly don't see that this officer's actions put him in the 'perpetually condition white, SAOAFR' zone in which many of you place him.
Ultimately TR said it best:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
If this officer gets to the fleet and he doesn't have a wingman, he can call me, I'll fly with him. (Top Gunnish)
All good reasons why he should have started with a LTL option or if he felt the need to go straight to a handgun, he probably needed to take the shot.
But here is the important part. I don't think anyone is criticizing this guy because we don't like cops, don't like the individual personally or anything like that. We are very concerned that he put himself at undue risk. Now if it was just him, then fine. He's on the spot, he makes the call and he suffers any consequences of showing too much restraint.
What I think most of us are worried about is that this will be held up as some kind of standard that all other LEOs should conform to. After all if this cop can do it for "a white guy threatening to kill a cop who might be armed" then certainly the same restraint should be granted to ALL unarmed individuals, even those who tried to go after a cops gun.
We simply don't want to see things come to that. I'd rather all LEOs error on the side of personal safety when it comes to aggressive individuals who are threatening to kill them. If I have to choose between the cop and the aggressive guy threatening to kill the cop, I'm going with the cop.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-20-15, 21:58
My Sgt's would probably put me on ad-leave for that nonsense....
Moose-Knuckle
04-21-15, 05:13
His lack of command presence that resulted in him fleeing cover while back peddling to the point of falling backwards is what gives me the most heartburn. He needed to commit to a course of action to subdue the suspect as soon as he decided to leave cover under the faith that the suspect was unarmed. Running backwards in front of a suspected violent felon until back-up arrives is not reasonable.
This sums up my thoughts on the video precisely.
Yep, he didn't want to kill that officer. He had the opportunity to but didn't take it when the officer ended up on his back.
When the killer, I refuse to use his name, of Kyle Dinkheller was asked why he killed him. The murderer said it was because Dinkheller let him.
I also thought of the Dinkheller incident and yes had the perp in the video wanted to kill the LEO or fight him for his gun he could have. As with the Dinkheller murder, this too will be used to train In-Service DT classes to LEOs and academies across the nation.
Would have been a good shoot all day long, and should have been. The suspect saying "shoot me"
I.E. Doesn't automatically mean, he wants to suicude by cop. Could very well be a ploy.
I definitely think all the negative crap that's been hurled on LE, made this officer put his life and safety in the hands of a wanted armed murderer.
I'm not bashing the officer, I'm glad he wasn't hurt, but cops can't hesitate with a clear known deadly force threat.
If the suspect is found not to be armed it is without a doubt a good shoot.
Eurodriver
04-21-15, 07:19
If the suspect is found not to be armed it is without a doubt a good shoot.
Absolutely. I'm sure George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, despite both being legally "good shoots", are enjoying stress-free lives right now.
A legal good shoot doesn't mean it's one you should take. I'll let the situation unfold a little longer and risk the consequences over being a marked man for the rest of my life. YMMV - hope we don't see people burning pictures of you and Spike Lee releasing your parents' home address.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-21-15, 08:57
Absolutely. I'm sure George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, despite both being legally "good shoots", are enjoying stress-free lives right now.
A legal good shoot doesn't mean it's one you should take. I'll let the situation unfold a little longer and risk the consequences over being a marked man for the rest of my life. YMMV - hope we don't see people burning pictures of you and Spike Lee releasing your parents' home address.
I'm shocked by this comment. People die because they let situations "unfold a little further". When the line is crossed, there is no going back. There is no waiting just a little longer. When someone puts themselves into a situation where someone can now justifiably take their life, 99.99999% of the time they knew what they were doing. Hesitation, especially like what we witnessed in this video, is one of the most deadly factors of LE.
As an FTO, the two hardest aspects to engrain in my trainee's head are: The right moment to engage, and officer safety. I CRINGE when I watch this video, because this officer never learned either.
They are alive. Hesitation during a deadly force encounter will end up with the officer dead. If Wilson would have waited any longer for the situation to unfold he would have been killed with his own weapon. I'm not putting my life in the hands of a criminal during a deadly force encounter. No one should, officer, or civilian.
The officer was justified, and should have, fired his service weapon. He failed miserably by not employing lethal force when he was charged.
I'd just like to say this - the officer we are speaking about was not panic stricken and unable to act. His read of the situation was different than ours, he did not fire, it worked. This time. There are no statutes that require an officer to use force, it is a discretionary decision that the individual officer makes, hopefully out of a tactical decision making process, not fear or anger. The officer explained his reasoning in the attached snippet, many don't agree, but ultimately it was his decision.
This is not going to change anything in terms of the legal framework we have to work within; sure the mainstream media MAY focus on this case when reporting the next couple of shootings, but their attention span is such that it won't last long.
Moose-Knuckle
04-23-15, 02:41
I can also see the likes of Holder, Bloomberg funded groups, etc. use this video to further their agenda; "see, just look at that brave LEO. He didn't stand his ground and have to use deadly force neither do you!".
Eurodriver
04-23-15, 07:45
I'm shocked by this comment. People die because they let situations "unfold a little further". When the line is crossed, there is no going back. There is no waiting just a little longer. When someone puts themselves into a situation where someone can now justifiably take their life, 99.99999% of the time they knew what they were doing. Hesitation, especially like what we witnessed in this video, is one of the most deadly factors of LE.
As an FTO, the two hardest aspects to engrain in my trainee's head are: The right moment to engage, and officer safety. I CRINGE when I watch this video, because this officer never learned either.
I'm not putting my life in the hands of a criminal during a deadly force encounter. No one should, officer, or civilian.
I have accepted that my choice may lead to increased chance of injury or death. The thought of that is better, for me, than being the next Wilson or Zimmerman.
The officer explained his reasoning in the attached snippet, many don't agree, but ultimately it was his decision.
Yes, to a point. If a person is willing to allow himself to be injured, maimed, or even killed because they don't believe the attacker should receive deadly force, that's fine for them. But had that attacker who is already implicated in 2 murders, killed that officer and taken his gun, then he can kill other responding officers or citizens with that weapon. The self-sacrifice in this case has an impact that affects more than just the officer who is okay with taking that extra risk. That's a problem in law enforcement. If we worked in a vacuum and my refusal to take action (regardless of the reason I choose that) only affected me - great. But there is much more at stake than just me in a scenario such as we watched in that video.
I'm just a rookie cop, so take this for what it's worth, but I would have dumped that guy after about 7 seconds into the video. My goal is to go home at the end of my shift, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone else keep me from that.
ForTehNguyen
04-23-15, 19:07
sounds like a good way to get killed, he lucked out
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.