not knocking any leos but this could have been avoided right?
Cop Shoots Old Man After Mistaking His Cane For A Rifle | Video | Break.com
Cop Shoots Old Man After Mistaking His Cane For A Rifle | Video | Break.com
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
how could this been avoided
- Thread starter BLOODHOUND
- Start date
Night time is tough to see and things can go bad really quickly. We had 2 shootings here in the last 2 weeks in the phx area where things happened in seconds on a traffic stop and one cop was killed and another in the hospital. If you were there and giving commands to stay in the car and the guy is reaching for something in the back of his car, your stress level would be through the roof. You never know who you just pulled over. It's unfortunate for sure but I won't pass too much judgement.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
I agree. Remember this video next time you wonder why an officer uses force in a questionable manner.
disclaimer: I'm not condoning bad behavior, I'm merely trying to show the other side of the story.
Institute same ROEs as MIL downrange. Fire only when fired upon. Don't like it find a new job.
Farming is far more dangerous than being LEO, as are 9 other ordinary jobs. You don't see roofers going around murdering people.
Sent from my mind via apathy.
Farming is far more dangerous than being LEO, as are 9 other ordinary jobs. You don't see roofers going around murdering people.
Sent from my mind via apathy.
I don't exactly see motorists with rifles across their backs climbing ladders to attack roofers, either. Seriously, WTF?!
There are countless videos like that and many even worse, they get played in a lot of training we do to help remind officers to not become complacent as there is truly no such thing as something "routine."
Yeah, those crazy rifle guys are everywhere better shoot kids and old people just in case. Whatever it takes to make it home, right?
Anyone care post up numbers of innocent people killed by LEO vs LEO killed in the line - traffic related. Scary
Sent from my mind via apathy.
Yeah, not going to happen. Our goal is to go home at the end of every shift, which unfortunately has not always been possible thanks to how quickly things can turn on the job in a split second... We have every bit of right to protect ourselves as does an ordinary citizen. ROE for the military will not ever be something you will see come stateside for LEOs to follow, it is a different role entirely.
There have been many national studies and programs put into place to help increase safety for LEOs, which have thankfully helped bring down the number of line of duty deaths.
I posted the same video on here last night.... I cant access the this video for some reason so I don't know how long it is the one I posted is over 5 min long and in the last minute of the video you see the officer go off camera and you can here him kind of fall apart when what happened sets in..
I think it was a mistake I don't doubt that but how do you deal with elderly people??? many of them have hearing problems or cant here at all.. i don't know how I feel about this one
I think it was a mistake I don't doubt that but how do you deal with elderly people??? many of them have hearing problems or cant here at all.. i don't know how I feel about this one
NO disrespect but that deputy died because he didn't put in enough range time. If he had hit the guy in the beginning it would have been a different outcome. And yes I know a hot situation is different from the range but that's where muscle memory and training pay off.
I read a DOJ study that says in a large percentage of shootouts the gangbangers come out on top for exactly that reason. They put in a lot of time shooting because they are looking for trouble where as most LEEO's put in what they need to because they aren't looking for trouble and just want to go home at night...ironic.
Maybe if it was compared with officers who lived and not just died when in shootouts or attacked with various other means it might not be so scary of liberal statistics.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
#1 - Define speed traps? Many states regulate how quickly a municipality can change the speed limit so you cannot have a "speed trap." Most speed zones are developed the way they are by the local areas civil traffic engineers to best establish a well regulated flow of traffic that is appropriate for the layout of the roadway and the residential or commercially developed land adjacent to the roadway.
#2 - What does this have to do with the original post?
I understand where you are coming from. Training is everything. Training kept me alive more than once. Like I said before, I'm not a fan of how the system here works in regards o officer behavior; I'm currently involved with a federal lawsuit against my local PD. that doesn't make me a cop hater. I'm fully capable of seeing both sides.
I'm saying that there are two sides to every story, and its hard to judge why the officer made the decision he did. If I was on Patel and someone started yelling a long object from a vehicle, I would be inclined to remember videos from training,
I can't tell you how many times I waited until the very last second possible before making a decision about pulling a trigger on someone, and that was in a combat scenario as an Infantryman. Fortunately, I never chose wrong.
There are a lot of things that go through your head under high-stress situations, and if you are well-trained you will think about what you need to do in order to see your family again.
Deep sigh, followed by face palm.
Is the oath you swear "whatever it takes to get home"?
The old man would have been within his rights to trade his cane for a rifle and shoot that idiot.
The cop gets away with attempted murder with a paid vacation.
LEOs are ordinary citizens doing a thankless job. I also think they should be held to same standard (at a MINIMUM) as their peers. This should go before a grand jury.
If it's a clean shoot for me, it's a clean shoot for you. After all, I'm just trying to get home.
Cheers
Vince
Sent from my mind via apathy.
Where it would be interesting to find out how many accidental, or unjustified shootings by police happened VS how many police officers were shot, it is difficult to find such information. One problem is that the majority shootings by law enforcement officers are later determined to have been justified. I'm not suggesting that the justified shootings excuse the unjustified ones. For rather obvious reasons, the number of unjustified shootings by various law enforcement officers isn't a statistic that many agencies are keen to publish.
Dealing with elderly people can be difficult at times, yes.
I learned a very valuable lesson on field training years ago when I found myself in a very bad situation with an elderly gentleman. I was on a call for 911 hang ups and was attempting to make contact at the residence and wasn't getting any answer initially. The way the doorway was constructed was not conducive to a good tactics in positioning yourself off of the door for contact. An elderly gentleman answered the door believing he was being robbed. As I was backing away from the door it was opened with a pistol pointed to my head. I quickly reacted and drew down on the old man seeking cover and ordered the man to put the gun down. Hard of hearing, he began a shouting match over who should put their guns down. Thankfully the situation was resolved peacefully, but it was a realization real quick as the old man could hardly see due to the fact it was night time and he could hardly hear despite being yelled at. Could've easily been different.
The reason why I bring this up is because incidents like these happen all the time, sometimes the way the incident unfolds it can be dealt with peacefully, sometimes the way things dictate they require action. These are split second decisions made under stress by other officers. There are definitely some issues where experience and training issues help shape the end result of these situations. It is easy for the outsider not in that position and in that moment to monday morning quarterback exactly the choices made in a given incident. There is a reason why the courts attempt to look at a given situation in the context of the incident and the totality of the circumstances at THAT moment, not from a hindsight is 20/20 point of view.
I took an oath to support the constitution of the united states, that of my state, and of the city I work for. Nowhere does it say that I will act in reckless disregard for my safety or that of others.
And yes, my goal is to come home at the end of every shift, a goal I have failed once before involving a stint in the ER and a few days in the hospital.
In no way do I advocate that police officers are above the law and or that it does not apply to them.
***So here is to my own face palm for you speaking about which you do not understand. ***
And it will go before the grand jury, as it should.
As nearly ALL officer involved shootings do.
Appears to be a lot of anger in your posts there, Vince.
As a LE firearms instructor, I think you might find a run through a firearms simulator, with real world situations, enlightening. I have put civilians through and to a person, their attitudes change about how LE handle a lethal force situation.
You might want to consider a police ride-along program. Nothing like the unknown, in the dark, by yourself.
When LE are faced with the simulator, yes, occasionally mistakes are made. But that is why we train. After the simulator, move on to Simunitions training with Force on Force.
As for this shooting, that was remarkably like so many dash-cam videos where the driver pulls out a long gun. Both will have to live with their actions but I am confident the grand jury and shooting review board will clear him. Even through he did the right thing, now, he just has to live with himself.
Two sides to every coin. In the end, it's a mistake, and those will happen given the situations that people find themselves in. Someone lost his life, and someone had to act thinking he was moments from losing his, and now will have to sit and wait to see if it is taken again, this time by a jury. That's a bad situation all around. Nobody is getting off easy here. I think the OP's question is pertinent. How do we prevent bad things like this? If you are finger pointing for any reason other than to identify an area of weakness that can be improved to help prevent this in the future, you should find elsewhere to apply your energy.
If a citizen homeowner shoots a cop on the sidewalk, mistakenly thinking the cop was a prowler, anyone think the police chief would defend the homeowner who felt threatened? Of course not the homeowner would get charged with murder for not identifying the target as a legitimate threat before shooting. It is not like this officer woke up with this guy in his bedroom. Are we to the point that an officer can stop a citizen and then shoot them any time they "feel" threatened? I reach for my wallet, I get shot? Get my glasses out of my shirt pocket I get shot? Hand my phone to my wife, well "it looked like he was reaching for a weapon" so I get shot? Didn't understand what the officer said so I get shot?
No, that isn't how it is supposed to work in a non-police state. Citizens want to go home at the end of the day too. If I am stopped by an officer and the cop puts his hand on his weapon, I would feel threatened right? Since more civilians are mistakenly shot by cops than there are cops shot by citizens, if I followed the same logic of some of the officers responding on this thread why wouldn't I be justified in drawing my own weapon in self defense when it looks like the officer might be considering shooting me? If you guys are saying this shoot was justified, then that tells me that whenever an officer feels threatened I am about to die. Shouldn't I defend myself at all costs at that point? If not, why does a cop have the right to shoot me "because he wants to get home" if I don't have that same right? Is his life worth more than mine?
My sense of morality says nobody should be shooting anybody until they KNOW they are a threat if you are on neutral ground. Cops shouldn't be drawing down on civilians without weapons and citizens shouldn't be shooting at cops because we ought to be able to trust them. Again, had it not been neutral ground and this old man broke in the officer's house it would be different, his presence alone in a place he should not be would be threatening even without the cane. However, in this case the officer was the one who initiated the contact with the old man who was minding his own business on neutral ground, and the burden is on the officer to KNOW. Yes, that means in some cases the citizen may have a chance to "get the drop" on you, but that is part of the job. If getting home every night is the only object, you need to get a safer job before you kill an innocent person, because doing law enforcement correctly involves taking risks to protect the citizen. The above poster was absolutely right about military ROE. It is ridiculous to argue that police officers should have a less restrictive ROE than soldiers on a battlefield. You have to wait until you KNOW you see a gun or a weapon and can therefore confirm the threat deserves lethal force. Had I operated the way the officers on this thread are arguing when I was on the battlefield as a close air support pilot, by just killing anyone I perceived as a threat to me or the soldiers I protect, I would be in Leavenworth right now for killing civilians or friendlies. Police officers get their authority from the same government I work for, according to officers here it seems American citizens deserve less consideration than foreign citizens on a battlefield.
In my opinion this officer was also a victim in a way, because he was set up for this unjustified shooting by training programs trickling down from the federal level that convince them that every citizen they meet is going to try and kill them. Despite the extreme rarity of such occurrences they play that messed up vietnam veteran video in every department in the country as if it happens all the time. I doubt there is a police officer in the whole country who hasn't seen that video multiple times, thus drilling in the mindset that resulted in this old man being shot.
Policing has changed in this country. The police are being told to fear the citizens and are using ever increasing force and weaponry, and the citizens are beginning to resent it as you can see on every forum on the internet and other public discussion. Respect for law enforcement has never been lower, and that isn't good for cops or the country. When I was a kid police officers were up there on a pedestal with all the heros of the nation, but they have lost a lot of trust in modern times. I would like to see the relationship change back to that of the "peace officer" instead of the "law enforcement officer", like it was when it seemed we were all on the same side, and every interaction with them wasn't a dominance game with an officer spring loaded to kill me.
No, that isn't how it is supposed to work in a non-police state. Citizens want to go home at the end of the day too. If I am stopped by an officer and the cop puts his hand on his weapon, I would feel threatened right? Since more civilians are mistakenly shot by cops than there are cops shot by citizens, if I followed the same logic of some of the officers responding on this thread why wouldn't I be justified in drawing my own weapon in self defense when it looks like the officer might be considering shooting me? If you guys are saying this shoot was justified, then that tells me that whenever an officer feels threatened I am about to die. Shouldn't I defend myself at all costs at that point? If not, why does a cop have the right to shoot me "because he wants to get home" if I don't have that same right? Is his life worth more than mine?
My sense of morality says nobody should be shooting anybody until they KNOW they are a threat if you are on neutral ground. Cops shouldn't be drawing down on civilians without weapons and citizens shouldn't be shooting at cops because we ought to be able to trust them. Again, had it not been neutral ground and this old man broke in the officer's house it would be different, his presence alone in a place he should not be would be threatening even without the cane. However, in this case the officer was the one who initiated the contact with the old man who was minding his own business on neutral ground, and the burden is on the officer to KNOW. Yes, that means in some cases the citizen may have a chance to "get the drop" on you, but that is part of the job. If getting home every night is the only object, you need to get a safer job before you kill an innocent person, because doing law enforcement correctly involves taking risks to protect the citizen. The above poster was absolutely right about military ROE. It is ridiculous to argue that police officers should have a less restrictive ROE than soldiers on a battlefield. You have to wait until you KNOW you see a gun or a weapon and can therefore confirm the threat deserves lethal force. Had I operated the way the officers on this thread are arguing when I was on the battlefield as a close air support pilot, by just killing anyone I perceived as a threat to me or the soldiers I protect, I would be in Leavenworth right now for killing civilians or friendlies. Police officers get their authority from the same government I work for, according to officers here it seems American citizens deserve less consideration than foreign citizens on a battlefield.
In my opinion this officer was also a victim in a way, because he was set up for this unjustified shooting by training programs trickling down from the federal level that convince them that every citizen they meet is going to try and kill them. Despite the extreme rarity of such occurrences they play that messed up vietnam veteran video in every department in the country as if it happens all the time. I doubt there is a police officer in the whole country who hasn't seen that video multiple times, thus drilling in the mindset that resulted in this old man being shot.
Policing has changed in this country. The police are being told to fear the citizens and are using ever increasing force and weaponry, and the citizens are beginning to resent it as you can see on every forum on the internet and other public discussion. Respect for law enforcement has never been lower, and that isn't good for cops or the country. When I was a kid police officers were up there on a pedestal with all the heros of the nation, but they have lost a lot of trust in modern times. I would like to see the relationship change back to that of the "peace officer" instead of the "law enforcement officer", like it was when it seemed we were all on the same side, and every interaction with them wasn't a dominance game with an officer spring loaded to kill me.
Last edited:
Excellent point.
Anger, yes. I would prefer LE to stop shooting people and animals when they get scared. It's way more likely that it's a kid with a toy, a deaf old man with a cane, an idiot with a cell phone, or two old ladies delivering newspapers. When it isn't, that's when I hope that you have been training harder than the bad guy.
313.9 million people.
30 officers shot in the line of duty.
Somebody help me with the math, please. 1 in 30 million chance of being shot on the job?
Don't get me started on the dog thing. Know how many officers were killed by dogs in 2013, or ever for that matter? Did you know that That 100's of postal carriers are actually bitten by dogs every year. Do you know how many dogs they shoot? 0. Not everything is a nail, please put away the hammer.
Training: I've done a ton (and not enough) on the taxpayers dime. Incredible shooting courses, FATS(?) , Sim rounds, combatives training as well, not to mention training on my own time. Wish I could say I was an amazing shot for all that $, but I do have fun anyway. 19.5 years active military and counting, literally! Lol
I have the utmost respect for any citizen that takes it upon themselves to serve their fellow man. It is a great responsibility. I believe that most LEOs are probably outstanding at what they do. I do believe some departments are making changes for the better. Our local agencies have completely changed the Academy from and us vs them warrior ethos to a community policing mindset. But just as LE deals with the tiny minority that is the worst of the public daily, the public hears about the tiny minority of LEOs that shoot innocent people, dogs and much worse daily.
I am open to ideas. I will contact the local clubs I shoot with and see if I can get them to subsidize, waive or discount match the fees for local active LEOs. Please PM me if interested so I can pitch a ballpark number to the clubs.
Apologies for the off topic sidetracks! I'll try to keep to the OPs intent.
Cheers
Vince
Sent from my mind via apathy.
I'm sorry but LEO's make a choice to put on a uniform, period. No one forces them to do it. They are supposed to be more responsible and more accountable than the citizens they are paid to protect, notice I said protect. LEO's should be held to a higher standard not a lesser standard. When faced with a stressful and possibly volatile situation they should be in control at all times and never, EVER draw their weapon except to encounter a threat and never use their weapon except when faced with deadly force. This officer should lose his job, be indicted and tried. If LEO's are not held to a standard and held responsible then people will start reacting to a perceived threat, cause if a LEO draws a weapon on you without provocation or cause, you are justified in defending yourself and your loved ones. LEO's will become targets the second they stop being public servants and start being seen as executioners. Think about that before you defend this individual. He deserves his punishment, he took a life without provocation or cause. If I shot and killed someone who I thought had a gun on the street I would go to jail, he deserves no less. I am sick to death of LEO's playing like they are victims. If you can't handle the job then find another. All of these people making excuse makes me really wonder if things have changed to the point where they can no longer be trusted, if that blue line is so important to you then maybe you should all suffer the same consequences for your failures to police yourselves. Remember that the next time you pull over someone in the middle of the night and they have to make a choice about whether you will shoot them just because they reach for their wallets...then your family will get to watch as they claim they thought you were a threat, the difference will be, you actually had a weapon with which to defend yourselves, you wont die reaching for a cane.
how could this been avoided
Not that it makes a difference between a lawful shooting and an unlawful shooting but since you guys talk like you know everything; Mr. Canipe did not die.
How hard is it to stay in the car. How hard is it to pay attention to someone screaming at you. He heard the officer tell him to drop to gun after several shots were fired, why did he not pay attention up to that point?
Not that it makes a difference between a lawful shooting and an unlawful shooting but since you guys talk like you know everything; Mr. Canipe did not die.
How hard is it to stay in the car. How hard is it to pay attention to someone screaming at you. He heard the officer tell him to drop to gun after several shots were fired, why did he not pay attention up to that point?
Last edited:
That's my mistake, I misread the original story on this issue. It does not negate the fact that the Officer had a duty and responsibility to identify what Mr Canipe had in his hands. Also, I'm 35 years old and I'm damn near deaf, Mr Canipe may very well be too. I'm not saying he didn't make a mistake by getting out of his vehicle, but the officer made a monumental error. He can't claim it was too dark because the fact is the area was lit up like a christmas tree. He had a responsibility to ensure that the driver had a weapon before he used his weapon. Failure to comply with orders given by a peace officer is not cause to use deadly force. Lets take the argument further, if Mr Canipe had intended to use his cane as a weapon and assault the officer, the officer still would not be justified in using deadly force. Any way you slice it, this officer made a grievous mistake in drawing and firing his weapon. Unfortunately for him, it's a mistake he may be paying for, for a long time. I was watching Gangster Squad earlier, one of the men in it said something very applicable here..."There's two things you can't take back in this job, bullets out of your gun and words out of your mouth." More officers need to become aware of that, once they fire their weapon, their is no do overs, the officer himself said "It looked like a shotgun." He would have done well to have ensured it was a shotgun before he fired his weapon.
Perhaps he forgot his eyeglasses at home. Also he appears to be excellent shot hitting stationary target ONCE i mean that has to be above average so after he is cleared and back to his job he can be given a medal and perhaps position as LE firearms instructor.
The applicable standard in basically every place in the country is the "Reasonable Officer Standard", which put over-simply means:
How would a reasonable officer likely respond in the circumstances with the information available to them AT THE TIME
For Example: a driver has been asked to keep his hands visible, then attempts to retrieve something from under his seat. The officer orders the driver to stop, draws his weapon and continues to order the driver to stop while the driver continues to try to get something out from under the seat. If the officer can articulate that he was in fear for his safety and that he felt the driver was attempting to retrieve a weapon, and his perception is deemed to have been reasonable, then his actions are within policy and the law. Even it turns out the driver was reaching for a stuffed animal, the officer didn't know that at the time and made his decision based on the totality of the information available to him AT THE TIME.
NOW, the huge unquantifiable variable is body language or other non-verbal cues. I could sometimes TELL, without a word being spoken or a muscle being twitched that something was going to go bad. The "bad guy" may as well have had a neon sign over his head saying "this stop is going to go BAD". Other times I had guys frantically trying to get something out of the waistband of their pants despite my gun in their face and some pretty clear commands to stop, I was able to take my best guess that the guy was NOT going for a gun and didn't shoot, even though every standard known to policing would have justified it under the circumstances.
Hell, I even managed to not shoot some guys who DID pull guns, even when it was justified. At the time under those circumstances I felt like I could win another way. It was a micro-second read of the situation in every case, including the one/s where I DID fire my weapon.
How would a reasonable officer likely respond in the circumstances with the information available to them AT THE TIME
For Example: a driver has been asked to keep his hands visible, then attempts to retrieve something from under his seat. The officer orders the driver to stop, draws his weapon and continues to order the driver to stop while the driver continues to try to get something out from under the seat. If the officer can articulate that he was in fear for his safety and that he felt the driver was attempting to retrieve a weapon, and his perception is deemed to have been reasonable, then his actions are within policy and the law. Even it turns out the driver was reaching for a stuffed animal, the officer didn't know that at the time and made his decision based on the totality of the information available to him AT THE TIME.
NOW, the huge unquantifiable variable is body language or other non-verbal cues. I could sometimes TELL, without a word being spoken or a muscle being twitched that something was going to go bad. The "bad guy" may as well have had a neon sign over his head saying "this stop is going to go BAD". Other times I had guys frantically trying to get something out of the waistband of their pants despite my gun in their face and some pretty clear commands to stop, I was able to take my best guess that the guy was NOT going for a gun and didn't shoot, even though every standard known to policing would have justified it under the circumstances.
Hell, I even managed to not shoot some guys who DID pull guns, even when it was justified. At the time under those circumstances I felt like I could win another way. It was a micro-second read of the situation in every case, including the one/s where I DID fire my weapon.
Hard to relate unless you've been there, looks to me like the officer failed, did he not run the plate and figure out who he was dealing with? If he couldn't figure out that he wasn't at risk, he's in need of some serious remedial training. As for the LEO vs. military analogies, it's not even the same sport and our ROE's aren't that you can only fire once fired upon, every theater is different with COIN operations, hostile intent could be a guy digging near a road FWIW.
Are you stating that running a plate will tell you he is not a threat? If so that is short sighted thinking. I guess having been there before does give perspective. A minor traffic stop is very routine. In 16 years I've likely conducted several thousand of them. I have had numerous drivers/passengers get out of the car on me over the years. I have had exactly 1 get out that did not try to fight me or run. That right there throws a huge red flag. Then to start digging in the bed of a truck presents another red flag. Then completely disregarding an officer screaming at him throws another red flag. Then he ends up pulling something out that certainly looks like a long barreled weapon. I have had more people pull guns out than pull canes out. That officer did exactly what he should have. If that were a gun that guy would have easily been able to shoot him.
The original poster asked how to avoid this. It is simple. STay in your car and when an officer tells you to stop then you stop. If you don't like it you are welcome to keeps your tags updated and and obey the traffic laws like most people manage to do.
Some of you are unreal. You expect police to wait around until someone is shooting at them just in case it may be someone who is too stupid or unwilling to listen to what amounts to a lawful order. When you are stopped you are being legally detained. That deputy did the best job a person could do of determining what was in the guys hand in the minuscule amount of time he had to do it. Judging by the video he may have waited too long if it was actually a gun. The deputy will not be prosecuted or disciplined because the law agrees with the deputies actions.
So your saying that it is possible that the deputy shooting at him improved his hearing? He obviously heard the deputy tell him to drop the gun after the shots were fired but you think he couldn't hear him screaming before the shots are fired?
As for the rest of your post, keep getting your info from movies.
The thin blue line is going to be in trouble if they lose the trust and support of the American people. The .01% who own our politicians won't have LEO's back.
If Joe Deerhunter goes into the woods no FLEA or LEO will be able to choose a safe road. Joe Veteran can sit behind a scope all day waiting for a white tail deer,,,,hell I know guys that walk the woods for weeks before deer season opens to find the best place to surprise a buck,,, you don't think he'll wait for the guy that shot his dad during a traffic stop ?
Officer Safety needs to consider what team he wants to be on when We the People say the line has been crossed. I suggest Team Constitution,,, because the .01 % that run team money don't give a damn about a cop.
If Joe Deerhunter goes into the woods no FLEA or LEO will be able to choose a safe road. Joe Veteran can sit behind a scope all day waiting for a white tail deer,,,,hell I know guys that walk the woods for weeks before deer season opens to find the best place to surprise a buck,,, you don't think he'll wait for the guy that shot his dad during a traffic stop ?
Officer Safety needs to consider what team he wants to be on when We the People say the line has been crossed. I suggest Team Constitution,,, because the .01 % that run team money don't give a damn about a cop.
I totally see your point and don't disagree with the red flags, if you exit the vehicle and come after an agent you should expect to get shot at, every situation isn't the same. I wouldn't have shot at the guy once I ran his plates and noticed his wife in the vehicle while following them prior to turning the codes on, with that being said I'm simply stating the cop was a bit edgy in this situation.
There are a few elements in play prior to the shooting getting under way, but I'm going to focus on the shooting part as it's something that has been in my craw for a long time. I'm calling major failure on this cops training and am giving him low marks on his shooting. He was stressed and sunk to his level of training, which seems very low. Had he been proficient with his weapon and more confident in his skill set I think it likely he would not have chosen to fire as soon as he did, and if he still had made the decision to fire the old man would be dead. This is the bane of every police department in the country and I see it frequently in USPSA and 3-Gun.
I have two sisters that are LEOs, one of whom sometimes makes it to an occasional IDPA competition and spends minimal time at the range because it's all she can afford. The other is a rabidly competitive shooter because she loves it and has the support of a husband (NOT her PD) to bear the significant expense. Likewise, two of my shooting buddies are LEOs and USPSA masters and solid 3-Gunners. Both of them bear 90% of the cost of their training, one even has a side business specifically to pay for it... and he is the departments master firearms instructor. Both of them actively recruit other officers to compete and many of them perform quite poorly, unless they stick with it. But sticking with it mean shouldering a burden that they will get little or no help with from their department or the public that so demands weapons proficiency. A significant number of DQs I have seen were for LEOs. One of the reasons I focus on competition is because it makes for a good yard stick. False confidence can be worse than no confidence. Stacking yourself up against a community of shooters can be motivational and let you know where you stand.
You do not have to have combat experience to understand what happens to your decision making ability when you're stressed... your breathing gets screwed up, which affects your eye sight and your thinking. Add physical stress in there, some movement, and put guns in play and it's a recipe for disaster. Your mind no longer has the ability to acutely focus on all the tasks at hand. Muscle memory and training take over, if you have it. How many of us have played sports where your coach is screaming at you because you're in the wrong position or don't see something you should because you're wheezing, guys are running all over the place, that bead of sweat is running into your eye, there are 2 different plays you could make but you freeze in a moment of indecision because your brain is on vapor lock, and the coach's screaming is just making it all worse? And that is a situation that will end with everyone sitting around making fun of each other over pizza, not in a morgue.
My less financially equipped sister got a position on a drug task force and I sat in horror at her kitchen table one evening as she and her husband (also an LEO) talked about what was going on with this group and the people they were facing. My feeling of stress was because i knew first hand that her level of training was no where near what it should have been. Myself and a few family members bought her an nice AR and pooled together the $$$ to send her to a solid training class and an ass load of ammo. I still send her ammo to train and compete with. While she is better than many of her peers, including some guys on SWAT, she still kind of sucks. What I mean by that is she is not as practiced as she should be. I see her thinking about weapons manipulation and executing poor technique when the only thing she should be focused on his the array of targets in front of her. I probably judge her more harshly than I should because I love my sister and I know that one day instead of metric targets it will be bad guys shooting back.
I know police departments send officers to simulators and have some kind of qualification schedule, but it is a joke. Twice a year my brother-in-law and myself buy some ammo and spend a little time at the range with my niece so she will be sure to pass her qual with the state of GA. And that qual standard itself is a joke. Doing a back of the envelope calculation I figure a minimal training schedule meant to keep her moderately familiar with her weapon would cost more than 25% of her take home pay. If she trained at the same pace I do it would be 50% or more of her take home pay. If she trained like some of the best shooters I know she would not be able to pay rent. In my estimation it is unconscionable to not provide (meaning PAY) for the level of training that we expect.
This is not an excuse for what happened, but I do think it in part explains it. Communities call for better football helmets and better training when kids suffer concussions. We hold coaches responsible, and sometimes fire them, when athletes behave poorly because they have not been properly instructed. But we as a society do not, that I have ever seen, rally together and buy some ammo, weapons, range time, and training for officers when a shooting is poorly handled. I think the public perception of LEO firearms training is very different from what it really is and maybe that contributes to the problem. I know this is but one aspect of the situation but it seems relatively simple to to address in so far as it is an issue of time, money, and effort.
I have two sisters that are LEOs, one of whom sometimes makes it to an occasional IDPA competition and spends minimal time at the range because it's all she can afford. The other is a rabidly competitive shooter because she loves it and has the support of a husband (NOT her PD) to bear the significant expense. Likewise, two of my shooting buddies are LEOs and USPSA masters and solid 3-Gunners. Both of them bear 90% of the cost of their training, one even has a side business specifically to pay for it... and he is the departments master firearms instructor. Both of them actively recruit other officers to compete and many of them perform quite poorly, unless they stick with it. But sticking with it mean shouldering a burden that they will get little or no help with from their department or the public that so demands weapons proficiency. A significant number of DQs I have seen were for LEOs. One of the reasons I focus on competition is because it makes for a good yard stick. False confidence can be worse than no confidence. Stacking yourself up against a community of shooters can be motivational and let you know where you stand.
You do not have to have combat experience to understand what happens to your decision making ability when you're stressed... your breathing gets screwed up, which affects your eye sight and your thinking. Add physical stress in there, some movement, and put guns in play and it's a recipe for disaster. Your mind no longer has the ability to acutely focus on all the tasks at hand. Muscle memory and training take over, if you have it. How many of us have played sports where your coach is screaming at you because you're in the wrong position or don't see something you should because you're wheezing, guys are running all over the place, that bead of sweat is running into your eye, there are 2 different plays you could make but you freeze in a moment of indecision because your brain is on vapor lock, and the coach's screaming is just making it all worse? And that is a situation that will end with everyone sitting around making fun of each other over pizza, not in a morgue.
My less financially equipped sister got a position on a drug task force and I sat in horror at her kitchen table one evening as she and her husband (also an LEO) talked about what was going on with this group and the people they were facing. My feeling of stress was because i knew first hand that her level of training was no where near what it should have been. Myself and a few family members bought her an nice AR and pooled together the $$$ to send her to a solid training class and an ass load of ammo. I still send her ammo to train and compete with. While she is better than many of her peers, including some guys on SWAT, she still kind of sucks. What I mean by that is she is not as practiced as she should be. I see her thinking about weapons manipulation and executing poor technique when the only thing she should be focused on his the array of targets in front of her. I probably judge her more harshly than I should because I love my sister and I know that one day instead of metric targets it will be bad guys shooting back.
I know police departments send officers to simulators and have some kind of qualification schedule, but it is a joke. Twice a year my brother-in-law and myself buy some ammo and spend a little time at the range with my niece so she will be sure to pass her qual with the state of GA. And that qual standard itself is a joke. Doing a back of the envelope calculation I figure a minimal training schedule meant to keep her moderately familiar with her weapon would cost more than 25% of her take home pay. If she trained at the same pace I do it would be 50% or more of her take home pay. If she trained like some of the best shooters I know she would not be able to pay rent. In my estimation it is unconscionable to not provide (meaning PAY) for the level of training that we expect.
This is not an excuse for what happened, but I do think it in part explains it. Communities call for better football helmets and better training when kids suffer concussions. We hold coaches responsible, and sometimes fire them, when athletes behave poorly because they have not been properly instructed. But we as a society do not, that I have ever seen, rally together and buy some ammo, weapons, range time, and training for officers when a shooting is poorly handled. I think the public perception of LEO firearms training is very different from what it really is and maybe that contributes to the problem. I know this is but one aspect of the situation but it seems relatively simple to to address in so far as it is an issue of time, money, and effort.
^^^This.
That said, I used to travel a lot, on the interstate highways, and at night. If stopped, I always flipped on the dome light and had my DL, registration and insurance papers in my hands, with both hands in clear sight and spoke in clear and respectful tones. Never had even a small problem and honestly believe that I got some warnings rather than tickets because I made the officer feel comfortable.
The only trouble Ive had is with some pricks who asked if they could look though the car and when I politely refused, called the K9 unit, FALSEFIED the alert, and searched the car anyway. Theres one of those on I-70 about 90 miles west of Salina Kansas. Couple of young shitheads that think because the represent the law they are above it. They were so hot to find the large sum of money that wasnt there, that HAD I been a bad guy, they wouldnt have been going home. Reference the above quoted post., and remember what Gunga said...the .0001% who own the politicians WILL NOT HAVE YOUR BACK. They will be laughing from their fortified castles.
You make some very good points. My dad has passed, heart attack at 86. Remembering how I felt, it is probably good that I had no person to blame. I thought your Dad might have had a gun, so I killed him would not have been the smartest thing his murder could have said.
To be more responsive to the OP question on how to prevent this kind of thing. How about issuing plates that start with the letter H for the hard of hearing. Thus the officer will be aware that the motorist may not be able to hear him before he pulls him over.
Nice thought but then would we issue plates with an I (illiterate) R (retarded), and JPS (just plain stupid)?
I think bogeybrown's post indicates he is an officer with the confidence and judgment to prevent incidents like this, mosethetanks post may indicate how to get more officers to think and act like bogey, and diverdon's idea above for some kind of marker for the hard of hearing also has merit and might have helped the officer not get the wrong idea.
I have had some private conversations with some officers from this site that convince me that hope isn't lost, lots of officers "get it" and that there is slow change in the works. A small rudder takes a while to turn a big ship, and that's how it is. The key is to keep pressuring for change in police policy (or maybe more importantly police culture) while at the same supporting the guys who do it right so they will stay and be part of the solution. The job isn't easy, isn't going to make you rich, and if you feel hated for doing it the only ones who will stay are the ones who get some twisted satisfaction out of power and the ones who are very dedicated upright pros who get satisfaction from serving the public safety. We probably can't change the former, but we can encourage the larger middle ground of officers to stay and follow the latter's example by not treating every officer as if he is one of those tyrants with a badge. Just like every citizen should be assessed individually by officers based on sound judgment so should officers be evaluated by the public. They are not a monolithic block of like minded people.
I have had some private conversations with some officers from this site that convince me that hope isn't lost, lots of officers "get it" and that there is slow change in the works. A small rudder takes a while to turn a big ship, and that's how it is. The key is to keep pressuring for change in police policy (or maybe more importantly police culture) while at the same supporting the guys who do it right so they will stay and be part of the solution. The job isn't easy, isn't going to make you rich, and if you feel hated for doing it the only ones who will stay are the ones who get some twisted satisfaction out of power and the ones who are very dedicated upright pros who get satisfaction from serving the public safety. We probably can't change the former, but we can encourage the larger middle ground of officers to stay and follow the latter's example by not treating every officer as if he is one of those tyrants with a badge. Just like every citizen should be assessed individually by officers based on sound judgment so should officers be evaluated by the public. They are not a monolithic block of like minded people.
Yes this would help me when I drive too lol. Go ahead and issue a shoot on site tag for those people texting with both hands while driving so they can be engaged with a javelin/Carl gustav/flamethrower immediately.
Issue with plates is that they are not a guarantee of who is actually in the vehicle. Often times the people I am arresting are not driving their own vehicles as they are registered to "friends" or their elderly parents, etc. Point being is that you never know who is in a vehicle or what vehicle represents a potential threat.
I do wish more officers trained more regularly, you definitely see many who could be much more proficient in their skills. As has been stated they often don't get the level of training they should receive as unless they take it upon themselves on their own dime, there simply isn't enough $$$ for many places to adequately train officers to anything more than the minimum standards.
I realized that I got off topic a bit in other posts, it's just that often these LE posts turn into a bashing thread without any understanding from our side on why we do certain things we do. That being said, until you remove the human factor from law enforcement, there will be errors.
***
That being said, this officer made some errors. It appears that he just made the stop on the vehicle and that he had yet to contact the driver so here is my analysis.
Tactical mistake #1 is not calling the stop out prior to actually coming to a stop (assuming this is in fact the beginning of the stop, which it appears it is). Get your stop location and plate out to dispatch before your vehicle is ever going into park. Your seatbelt should already have been taken off prior to coming to a stop and your hands should be clear. As soon as I've thrown my cruiser into park I am already opening the door and getting a return on the vehicle plates as I am exiting the vehicle.
#2 The second you see a door open on the vehicle you're stopping you should be giving loud, clear, and simple verbal commands of what you want that driver to do or stop doing. "Sir, Sir, Sir" does not work. Much of your success in law enforcement comes from strong verbal communication skills. Without it, good luck.
#3 Draw out and MOVE if you've already committed to getting away from out behind the door (If you haven't cleared the car attempt to use as much concealment as well as the cover provided by the engine block. If you can put, some angle and movement on someone if you've already found yourself in the open.
#4 Identify what the subject has in their hands as best as you can. This one is not as easy for me to list as there are situations where it is not appropriate to wait to see what exactly what an object is. This is one of those areas where experience and training may lead you to skip this step as it is time to act. You really do develop an uncanny "gut" feeling for reading situations the longer you have been on... it's amazing at how you can sense when something is really wrong or something bad is about to happen well before it happens.
I hate to monday morning quarterback another officer, I just think he was not in control of the situation. Maybe he has never had someone get out on a stop on him, I don't know. I will say that older people, especially from the east coast, will sometimes get out just like this guy did because in some areas they used to have to walk back to the officer. That being said, out of thousands of traffic stops I have made I will say that the behavior exhibited by the driver is not typical of a normal traffic stop. In most cases when I've had people get out like this it goes south pretty quickly.
I do wish more officers trained more regularly, you definitely see many who could be much more proficient in their skills. As has been stated they often don't get the level of training they should receive as unless they take it upon themselves on their own dime, there simply isn't enough $$$ for many places to adequately train officers to anything more than the minimum standards.
I realized that I got off topic a bit in other posts, it's just that often these LE posts turn into a bashing thread without any understanding from our side on why we do certain things we do. That being said, until you remove the human factor from law enforcement, there will be errors.
***
That being said, this officer made some errors. It appears that he just made the stop on the vehicle and that he had yet to contact the driver so here is my analysis.
Tactical mistake #1 is not calling the stop out prior to actually coming to a stop (assuming this is in fact the beginning of the stop, which it appears it is). Get your stop location and plate out to dispatch before your vehicle is ever going into park. Your seatbelt should already have been taken off prior to coming to a stop and your hands should be clear. As soon as I've thrown my cruiser into park I am already opening the door and getting a return on the vehicle plates as I am exiting the vehicle.
#2 The second you see a door open on the vehicle you're stopping you should be giving loud, clear, and simple verbal commands of what you want that driver to do or stop doing. "Sir, Sir, Sir" does not work. Much of your success in law enforcement comes from strong verbal communication skills. Without it, good luck.
#3 Draw out and MOVE if you've already committed to getting away from out behind the door (If you haven't cleared the car attempt to use as much concealment as well as the cover provided by the engine block. If you can put, some angle and movement on someone if you've already found yourself in the open.
#4 Identify what the subject has in their hands as best as you can. This one is not as easy for me to list as there are situations where it is not appropriate to wait to see what exactly what an object is. This is one of those areas where experience and training may lead you to skip this step as it is time to act. You really do develop an uncanny "gut" feeling for reading situations the longer you have been on... it's amazing at how you can sense when something is really wrong or something bad is about to happen well before it happens.
I hate to monday morning quarterback another officer, I just think he was not in control of the situation. Maybe he has never had someone get out on a stop on him, I don't know. I will say that older people, especially from the east coast, will sometimes get out just like this guy did because in some areas they used to have to walk back to the officer. That being said, out of thousands of traffic stops I have made I will say that the behavior exhibited by the driver is not typical of a normal traffic stop. In most cases when I've had people get out like this it goes south pretty quickly.
Last edited:
Unarmed U.S. Airman Shot by Police After Traffic Accident
Here is a another maybe unjustified shooting of a Airman with his hands in the air.
Here is a another maybe unjustified shooting of a Airman with his hands in the air.
Very true, however... It seems that the number of un-needed / unjustified deaths caused in the line of duty has steadily increased.
In addition, while you have the same rights to defend yourself as anyone else does, the problem is that justice and fairness is not seen to be done, when a normal law abiding citizen has to kill someone to defend their life, it is just about never a simple carry on as is, (or please take a few days vacation) and we'll get back to you if we feel something is wrong, except in the most obvious circumstances.
I would bet good money if US Department of Justice aggressively investigated every on duty (or off duty for that matter) shooting, using the same standards that apply to most people, of if you can convince a jury (or grand jury) that you at that moment were reasonably and credibly in fear of your life or of grievous bodily harm, (or was it a clear cut and plainly obvious case) and with the same threat of punishment both criminal and civil should you be found in the wrong, as most other people face, after a few years once word got around, there would be a lot less "unfortunate incidents".
Unfortunately most people seem to be all to willing to swallow the official line and turn a blind eye, or make excuses to ease their minds until it happens to them or someone they care about.
Similar threads
