And another one...

[abc_123]

Another unarmed man that was semi+ compliant shot by police. When police were in control of the situation.

By Nicole Darrah | Fox News

Kansas officials and the FBI are investigating whether a fatal shooting by a police officer on Thursday was the grim outcome of a prank by video gamers...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/29...-swatting.html


Sure one issue is with "swatting".. but another is why are police shooting people before positively identifying a weapon?...while in a position of relative cover / or at least preparedness.

I am pro law-enforcement, but the fact is that military, in hostage rescue situations, place the lives of the hostages before their own safety, is it too much to ask of our domestic law enforcement to assume some personal risk and at least positively confirm a weapon before shooting Americans.... at a personal residence?

[Pete]

Never happen - getting worse - going to get a lot worse.

After all - the most important thing is the officer go home safe at the end of his shift.

[JimP]

I'll just say this and then walk off as I disagree with previous situations wherein some here complained of the police: neither the law nor common sense dictates that the officers assume risk in these situations. There is a certain level of risk inherent in the job and everyone gets that. But neither soldiers nor police have to risk their lives in these matters (so far as requiring visual confirmation of a weapon).

We should know better than to require actual visual confirmation of a weapon. In most instances, once you see the weapon, it is too late.

Tache-psyche effect; "action beats reaction"; Hick's Law; etc.

and I KNOW most here would handle the situation(s) differently, as would I. I am merely stating that the law doesn't require a citizen cop to gamble with his life. The law takes into effect human dynamics of a deadly force encounter.

[Bleed Green]

I think that you all three have some valid points, but the one thing that is lost is the root cause of this. A 2 dollar disagreement over a game of Call of Duty. The person that made the 911 call and the person that gave this man's address as his own share guilt IMHO over this as one should have never made the call and the other could have simply given the person the address of an empty lot but instead they both acted recklessly.

The police get put in a very untenable position when you restrict them to react only when a threat is clear and obvious as Jim pointed out as action is always faster than reaction. By the same token there are some training issues that I have always found lacking with modern policing. One example being going away from DA/SA pistols. When I was a kid the one thing that was hammered into us was how little pressure it took to get a shot off in SA and by thumbing back the hammer not only did you escalate the level slightly and built in a higher degree of accuracy, but you also built in another step in the equation where you could reassess the situation if time permitted. I think in a lot of ways we have gotten away from the reassessment phase of policing as it adds a layer of risk that has been deemed legally moot because the judicial system has defined that a rationalized fear is justification for the use of of deadly force as opposed to a clear and present deadly threat.

I guess I miss the days when life was not so cheap as a 2 dollar disagreement and we as a society did not live in fear of everything but generally only feared things that merited it.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ooting-n833576

[Team Sergeant]

This happens when American law enforcement is scared shitless and have seen wayyyyy to many hollywood quick draw movies.

"He was moving his hand towards his waist........"

So I shat myself and pulled the trigger.

And yeah, we were trained differently, we look at hands, if they are empty we "do not shoot". Pretty simple really and it works quite well.

[Bleed Green]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

And yeah, we were trained differently, we look at hands, if they are empty we "do not shoot". Pretty simple really and it works quite well.

You hit one of the nails precisely on the head IMHO. Sometimes the old ways were truly the best ways, but then again I get accused of being a relic to a bygone era on a weekly basis anymore so don't quote me.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Bleed Green

You hit one of the nails precisely on the head IMHO. Sometimes the old ways were truly the best ways, but then again I get accused of being a relic to a bygone era on a weekly basis anymore so don't quote me.

Difference being trained killers know what a real threat is compared to an "imagined" threat. And police/feds are not trained killers.

This is not going to end until someone invents weapons that disable and not kill.

[rubberneck]

Is it me of do our troops in Afghanistan have a far more restrictive ROE than law enforcement stateside?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Is it me of do our troops in Afghanistan have a far more restrictive ROE than law enforcement stateside?

IMHO, they do.

TR

[Old Dog New Trick]

Easy...find the guy that called the police with a false report of a crime, which is a crime...which resulted in a homicide...and charge the guy who committed the crime with a homicide.

Just like everyone is guilty of the crime who was participating at the time of the crime and if a homicide occurred they are all guilty of the homicide even they were just sitting in the car.

Let the Judge and the courts decide if this behavior doesn’t deserve the strongest sentence available.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

IMHO, they do.

TR

If true, that’s a huge problem both ways. Law Enforcement needs a cultural shift. I don’t know how we get that genie back in the bottle

[JimP]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Is it me of do our troops in Afghanistan have a far more restrictive ROE than law enforcement stateside?

Yes, they do. I wrote a book about it: FIGHTING TODAYS WARS, How America's Leaders Failed Our Warriors, Stackpole.

Also wrote: VIRTUOUS POLICING, CRC Press.

[The Reaper]

So we are willing to send the guy who wrongfully called the cops to jail, but the idiot who actually shot and killed an unarmed civilian will not be prosecuted?

Should this sheepdog be permitted to continue to carry a badge and a gun, after he killed one of his sheep?

TR

[Old Dog New Trick]

I’d have to go with whatever the internal investigation and review board says.

If they say he (cop) acted stupidly and was truly afraid for his life then they should take his gun and badge away from him. Always a job in retail or stocking for people who are afraid of other people.

Every time I hear or see one of these stories about cops shooting unarmed and compliant or partially compliant people I think of the scene in Apocalypse Now where they get off the boat. 2000 rounds later Chief asks, “Cookie what was it?” “A fucking tiger man, it was a fucking tiger!”

Cops should be held to a higher standard of self defense than the average person. They are supposed to be trained to a higher standard and any police officer or department use of force plan that deploys special weapons, armor and tactics to make an arrest should be held to the highest standards of not shooting anyone that doesn’t present as a non-compliant threat or threat to other innocent lives.

Every situation is different and I’d hate to make blanket decisions that put an officer in danger but sometimes you hold all the decision making process and react badly when you had all cards stacked in your favor.

It’s one thing to be ill prepared and unaware of a potential deadly threat, and a completely different situation when you come into a potentially deadly situation fully prepared and ready to deal with the expected, unexpected or anticipated actions of others.

In the first you have no time and react according to your training or lack of. In the second you hold the clock and have as much time and patience as needed to execute your sworn duties to protect and serve the public your profession demands.

Too many times these days police are making bad decisions because of bad training and no accountability. Hold them and their departments accountable for their actions and while that may mean an acquittal in court and no civil charges awarded the officer in question and the head trainer should likely lose their jobs.

You can’t make a bad shoot good but you can make a good shoot bad in many ways.

[Combat Diver]

So police have now arrested a man in California over the false 911 call. Address he gave he assumed was the guy he had a beef with over "Call of Duty". Very bad situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/30...s-angeles.html


CD