Bad Police Thread - where calling the police is a gamble

You know absolutely zero tactics, which are utilized by agencies nationwide and are proven effective.

Neither do you

This and your cart blanche comment are incredibly stupid. But you do you dbl

 

I'm just going off what you said, boss. Don't shoot me.

 

So, given the video and everything we know, your stance is that the officer's response in this case was justified and reasonable? What percent of officers do you think would've done the same thing in the same circumstance?

 

So enlighten us, officer and please provide these stats that EdNigma been referencing that states an officer must get the drop on someone they pulled over.

 

To the contrary, you consistently pretend like you I know what your talking about. You have absolutely no experience or pratical understanding of how these things work. Instead you rely solely on how you feel about a certain circumstance in hindsight and make an off the cuff, usually generalized, judgment based on that feeling.

 

I think some of us are talking about this case in particular and others are talking about interactions of police and citizens in general.

For this specific case, I'd like to hear from our law enforcement members.

1. Given the video and other facts, do you personally (ignore the trial) think his reaction of 7 shots was reasonable?
2. Think of 100 of your coworkers. What percentage of them do you think would've done the same thing this officer did in this situation?

 

Feel free to read the Strategies and Tactics of Patrol Stops Manual. You all want to tell us how to police, try learning what we're taught.

Look, I don't know what you do for a living, but I probably have no idea how to effectively do your job day one. If I walked in today and tried to tell you how to do it you'd dismiss me as an idiot.

It's not about "getting the drop on someone," it's putting yourself at a tactical advantage to minimize risk. When I do a stop, I'm watching the driver, occupants, traffic, and trying to take all those factors into account.

 

So basically if you're not a cop you can't critique a cop?

Sounds like something a cop would say.

 

No you're not. I assume I have cart blanche to shoot you anyway though

 

Take a lap dbl

 

Agreed. We should try to do a better job of showing the white lives that are expendable, at the hands of cops.

 

The issue is that many in the general public feel LEO's aren't doing their job effectively yet LEO's just dismiss it and keep on doing what they've been doing for decades. We aren't telling you how to do it, just saying that what you are doing currently isn't working.

 

That's literally what you just said.

"You've never done the job so don't judge how I do it."

 

Sorry I was going off what EdNigma said.

 

1. No, all were fired in rapid succession at what appeared center mass. With the adrenaline dump, I think he stopped firing after he no longer saw movement.
2. I couldn't give you an exact percentage, but I'd say the chances are considerably higher with newer officers and officers nearing retirement.

 

He stopped firing when he ran out of bullets. You can see/hear him pull the trigger one last time with no bullet coming out.

 

So those statistics don't exist, got it.

That's all fine and well that you don't want people discussing what you do but you do realize that the people that you dismiss as idiots are trying to tell you about your job because they been on the other side of it. I come from a family of LEO, I get that coming home is priority #1, but that shit cuts both ways.

 

How many times in this thread have you asked "why do officers do this instead of this?" That's a critique, and I respond to those. You make blanket statements and with a general disregard of people who actually do the profession who try to provide context. You want change but have no desire to actually understand why we do what we do. Until you do make that effort, your "judgments" are just reactive nonsense

 

They're in the manual, go read it.

As I said, I'm fine with discussion. When we attempt to have that discussion we get "Rambo" and "war zone" and smart ass responses. If you have questions on why we do X and not Y, I'm happy to answer them as best as I can. But if it's the former and not the latter, yeah, I'm going to start dismissing the smart ass remarks

 

like this?

 

Make what effort? To become a cop? Anything short of that and my opinion means shit?

I don't have a disregard for LEO's, I'm just tired of the excuses. You can spin shooting after shooting but after a while it becomes pretty obvious that it's just a bunch of excuses for incompetent cops killing people that didn't deserve to die. Stop with the excuses to justify your current practices that lead to unnecessary shootings and start making changes that will prevent this type of activity in the future.

 

Seven rounds in a magazine? I didn't hear it, but ok.

I understand why people see 7 rounds and think "was that reasonable?" Unless it ventures into the gratuitous, or an execution style shot, punitive shots into the extremities, you're never going to have some arbitrary number. I've seen someone die from one 22 to the lower rib cage, and I've seen someone continue to fight after being shot 13 times with 40cal and then walk to the ambulance. I doubt any agency will ever transition away from shooting to end the threat.

 

So you made them up, got it.

Never called you Rambo, but interesting that being called Rambo offends you but you have a username that's a reference to Commando. You can feel free to dismiss my comments or better yet just ignore them altogether.

 

"If you're scared and dump one in him to protect yourself, you may as well unload the clip."

Brilliant.

 

Are you purposefully obtuse? If you want to discuss, we can discuss. Make some kind of effort to understand. You can't even get through the paragraph without more of the same old shit.

What have I spun exactly?

 

Case in point. Give a stupid response, I'm going to call it and you stupid.

 

It's pointless. You'll just refer back to "the manual" as if it's your bible and defend any and all actions through it. The part you're missing is people couldn't give a flying fuck about that manual. They just want people to stop dying. It's time to write a new manual.

 

Give a meathead comment, expect a meathead response.

 

They're not made up, they're in the manual. Put in a little effort.

I've been called worse than Rambo. How you make a correlation between saying I'm offended at Rambo and the unintentional hilarity that is pretty much all the dialogue in Predator is quite the leap.

Feel free to do the same

 

You want to put in zero effort into an actual discussion. Continue with your circle jerk then fellas

 

Never use stats that you can't provide, if you had any credibility you would have lost it.

 

Thanks for answering. I did list 7 shots in my question, but what I was really asking about was do you think a single shot was warranted in that situation? I'm not one of those that says "aim for the knees!" or thinks you can shoot but yet not shoot to kill. The number of shots fired isn't the main point, just whether or not ANY should have been fired. Do you think they should have been?

As for the second question, I guess I'm just wondering from an LEO's perspective, is that something you see and think "damn I'm glad I'm not him because I would've done the same thing", or do you see the video and think "damn, that guy (officer) screwed up and shouldnt have done that"

 

Ahh, we're back to "Read the manual!" Lovely.

The only effort I'm going to make is to say stop fucking killing people. It' snot my job to figure out how you do that. That's on you. Just do it.

 

I don't think he should have been shot. From what I saw was a parade of bad tactics that compounded. He treated the stop like it was a simple traffic infraction and not a high risk stop that he said he believed it was. He had him reaching for stuff knowing the increased potential was there he was armed (believing he was possibly the robbery suspect). I would have done a whole litany of different things, and his back up was lazy too. The officer overreacted.

It always varies, I look at these types of videos to learn from them. What did the officer do, and why? Have I seen myself in some videos, both good and bad? Absolutely.

 

K, then shut the fuck up about it

 

Exactly what I'd expect a cop to say. Thanks for living up to the LEO stereotype.

 

And this is what I expected you to say, but you do you dbl.

 

You expected me to point out that you're being a stereotypical cop by ignoring what the public says while barking out orders at them?? At least you're self aware.

 

Keep on keeping on

 

I'd prefer we didn't. I'd prefer we made some changes bc the current state of things isn't really working for me.

 

And yet, you offer nothing and bristle at even the attempt to understand the job you so badly want to change. I'm always up for conversation and hopefully provide context, but all you got is bullshit generalizations and snide remarks.

 

You're really not though. You're overly defensive when people suggest things could be done differently and just reply with "READ THE MANUAL!" It's obvious you have complete faith that what LEO's are doing is right and the fault lies on the citizens, therefore it's pointless to have a conversation with you bc you'll meet every suggestion with "Read the manual!" or "You have no idea what it's like!"

 

I'm not defensive at all. The only question I've seen from either of you was in regard to Stops and we explained why the proposed method was not safe. All of a sudden we're getting cunty responses like being rambos trying to get the drop on people. So spare me the righteneous. At the first opportunity the two of you attempted to devolve the conversation into this mess of shit.

I could go grab all the statistics and put them here, I could go through the entire 40 hour presentation and practical training program, and I'll just get more of the "cops treat the streets like a war zone, hate minorities, blah blah blah"

 

Ignore what the public says and stick to the manual.

You're good at this.

 

Will do

 

What do you do if they don't comply?

 

Regarding vehicle stops. Police approach all vehicle stops the same way, and that way is being prepared for anything. If you give a bad guy (i.e. someone looking to do harm to you) time and distance it gives him a better opportunity to formulate a plan to attack you. If you approach from rear and position yourself on the frame you put him at his worst tactical position (i.e. seated and having to turn his body and look back if he plans to attack, he also might not know exactly where you are), therefore hopefully squashing him will to do harm to you.

Now is every person you stop a bad guy looking to do you harm? Of course not, but cops are going to take the same tactical positioning every time.

What is sounds like some of you are proposing is felony stops, which is what the officer in Minnesota should've done if he believed this was an armed robbery suspect. That means he radios for backup, steps out of his car, weapon drawn and orders the man out of the car and on the ground in a position of disadvantage. Then he puts everyone else on the ground too, and cuffs everyone until he sorts out if this is the suspect or not. That would've worked here, but do you believe that is acceptable for every traffic stop? Do you think we should prone people out for a broken tail light? I don't think so, and I think most would agree.