Getting shot at with your own weapon isn't too appealing either. That happened.
The technology could be matured.
Google found this...
Saw this on the news...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Shooting debrief discussion
- Thread starter Swanee
- Start date
The technology could be matured.
Google found this...
Saw this on the news...
ABMD
Bullets don't fly without Supply
I don't think an officer wearing a simple bullet proof vest looks anything like Robocop. Robocop was wearing bulletproof body armor, not cargo pants and a polo.
Sad situation especially given the current circumstances and image of police across the country.
Not a member of LE, but an alternative outcome would be to just let him run. Either you call for back-up and everyone goes looking or you and your partner go it alone. If it's just you and your partner, you're probably going to split up and in that case he has already proven that he can overpower 2 police officers so a solo officer may not stand a chance.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I am making these points in general, and not specifically the situation that this thread is based on.
1. Handcuffing someone that is fighting is not easy, regardless of your Ninja 37 skills. Go find an MA and ask them to let you try to handcuff them on a wrestling mat. It is not easy. Add in alcohol and/or drugs and it gets even harder.
2. How many of you would be willing to have some electronic device between you and the manipulation of the controls of an aircraft attempting to land on a carrier? I realize you are operating equipment that has electronic interfaces, I am talking about an additional device that would only allow you to manipulate the controls if some preset condition is met. The way LE has evolved in this area is much more secure holsters. When I started, my .38 was drawn just by pulling on the grip. Now there usually two and sometimes three things that must happen for the weapon to be released.
3. Back up: There are not endless supplies of police, and most arrests can't wait until we have a 4:1 ratio on scene. The longer you give someone to think about being arrested, the longer they have to plan their resistance. Most police agencies in the US are less than 50 people total for the whole department, many are less than 10 people.
4. The talk.... If everyone in the US got the " the talk " from their primary caregiver that went something along the lines of this it would be better.
" Johnny, if the police ever come to arrest you, do what they say. When it's all over, we can go complain to IA, the state police, and/or the Justice Department and sue the guts out of the police when we are done. " This is simplistic, and I realize that many people think that the police are just out there locking up people for no reason, which would make compliance an act of capitulation . If that is your mindset, I can't change it.
5. LE is certainly not above review by anyone, and we need that to stay in tune with the people that we serve. However, in many instances, people's perception of the problem and possible solutions are not consistent with reality. Again, we need the input, and most of us appreciate it.
1. Handcuffing someone that is fighting is not easy, regardless of your Ninja 37 skills. Go find an MA and ask them to let you try to handcuff them on a wrestling mat. It is not easy. Add in alcohol and/or drugs and it gets even harder.
2. How many of you would be willing to have some electronic device between you and the manipulation of the controls of an aircraft attempting to land on a carrier? I realize you are operating equipment that has electronic interfaces, I am talking about an additional device that would only allow you to manipulate the controls if some preset condition is met. The way LE has evolved in this area is much more secure holsters. When I started, my .38 was drawn just by pulling on the grip. Now there usually two and sometimes three things that must happen for the weapon to be released.
3. Back up: There are not endless supplies of police, and most arrests can't wait until we have a 4:1 ratio on scene. The longer you give someone to think about being arrested, the longer they have to plan their resistance. Most police agencies in the US are less than 50 people total for the whole department, many are less than 10 people.
4. The talk.... If everyone in the US got the " the talk " from their primary caregiver that went something along the lines of this it would be better.
" Johnny, if the police ever come to arrest you, do what they say. When it's all over, we can go complain to IA, the state police, and/or the Justice Department and sue the guts out of the police when we are done. " This is simplistic, and I realize that many people think that the police are just out there locking up people for no reason, which would make compliance an act of capitulation . If that is your mindset, I can't change it.
5. LE is certainly not above review by anyone, and we need that to stay in tune with the people that we serve. However, in many instances, people's perception of the problem and possible solutions are not consistent with reality. Again, we need the input, and most of us appreciate it.
Last edited:
Says you and says me, but both of us are acclimated to the sight of someone in a working uniform, carrying all that equipment, the haircut, the air or bearing, and so on. Robocop is a big exaggeration but the cop "look" means different things to different people.
I think some cops take that look too far. When I see the roided-out, "geardo" look in a cop, it makes me nervous. Nervous for my own personal safety and nervous for how I think that guy is going to treat my fellow citizens. I wonder if he's the kind of person who thinks that everybody on the beat is out to get him and treat every person you meet as a potential threat until they prove otherwise. But I'm not blind to the fact that sometimes he also has to deal with some very tough customers.
Other than Brosnan verbally yelling that he was OK, was continuing to pursue/engage and communicating his position, I don’t know. Brosnan may have been attempting to do this...it’s hard to tell...there was a lot of poop hitting the fan very quickly. One possible solution regarding this scenario is to have more officers on scene which may function as more of a deterrent for a suspect to fight/flee as well as function to have more backup at the ready.
All excellent points, sir!
I’d like to highlight your first point...handcuffing...you are spot on regarding it NOT being easy. The handcuffing training we received at the Cincinnati Police Department was very thorough and intense. We were issued hinged cuffs and used those in training and on the street...and as you know, hinged cuffs are difficult to use on a resisting suspect. After I’d been on patrol for a bit, I decided to purchase and additional set of cuffs that were chained for more maneuverability and speed during the cuffing evolution...what a difference.
That's exactly my point. Mature technology is what I require. How about if, because I have this technology, I don't even attempt to stop someone from taking my gun and it malfunctions and he shoots me? I'm not an LEO, so take this opinion for what it's worth, but, all scenarios considered, I like my chances currently without said technology. Also, with regard to the former police chief, it's pretty easy to armchair QB this thing at 1G several days later.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
This is just an educated guess, but I doubt Chief Alexander would have approved of his officers not arresting DUI suspects and getting them a ride home. There is nothing in Georgia law that says you ever HAVE to arrest someone for an offense, but you better have a pretty good reason for not arresting if you choose not to when it comes to certain charges. DUI would definitely be one of those charges where, in reality, we have little discretion.
We could go down the " what if " trail all day, but say they had let him walk off and then he drove away and got in a serious wreck. A wreck where someone lost their life or was seriously injured.
Would there be a groundswell of support for the officers?
Again, no one in LE are beyond criticism and the public's review of what we do, but this comment from the Chief is questionable.
I'd have to see the video again, but as I recall, that vague telling of "under arrest" was because the officer was explaining why. "I think you have had too much to drink." The officer did say "under arrest". I have to say, the actual first attempt to cuff did not look traumatic to me. You have to grab the hands and you do grab them firmly so they can not break away, just like the suspect did. It is a matter of control. And, it is safer for all. If you are firm with the suspect, confident in your decision, and it is reflected in the way you approach and physically take control, the less likely they will resist. And if they resist, if you have good control you can still keep it from becoming a dog pile. That said, I am sure being placed under arrest and cuffed would seem traumatic to someone who has never been in that situation. It is why I said previously that initial cuffing is usually when someone runs or fights.
I can't imagine going from sleeping off a drunk to interacting with LE in a professional manner in a short span of time.
I am surprised by this policy. It seems to be very close to crossing the line drawn by Tenn v Garner. The only two department policies I am familiar with in my state reflect the state's law, below.
C. The use of deadly force by a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary:
1. To defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
2. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes:
(a) Has committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon.
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
(c) Through past or present conduct of the person which is known by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.
(d) Is necessary to lawfully suppress a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon.
D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a peace officer is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force when and to the extent a reasonable officer believes it necessary to protect himself against another's potential use of physical force or deadly physical force.
Notice the repeated requirement for a deadly threat, vs serious bodily injury which only is mentioned in 2(c).
What I'm suggesting is that one might clearly state that the suspect is under arrest and explain what was going to happen next before reaching for his hands. Seems like a good way to minimize angst and it doesn't mean you can still be "firm" and "confident." I've seen plenty of videos of people getting arrested where this was done in a more deliberate and effective manner.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
Georgia's justification for the use of deadly force is very similar to the post that you made. I might also add that the same DA has charged another person with Aggravated Assault, because in her opinion using a Taser is the use of deadly force.
Any use of force policy is going to be formed to conform with Graham vs. Conner and Tenn. Vs. Garner, if they don't that agency is way, way, way off in left field. The aviation analogy that I would use would be a company that said that they allow their pilots to consume alcohol in flight, as long as the consumption would not lead to impairment. Just like no one would have a written policy that said that, no PD would have a use of force policy that was not consistent with the USSC. I will concede that there are surely instances where the written policy and common practice are two different things. Those places deserve all of our scorn.
O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (2010)
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.
O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 (2010)
16-5-21. Aggravated assault
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or
(3) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (k) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated assault shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
(c) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a peace officer while the peace officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
(d) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
(e) (1) As used in this subsection, the term "correctional officer" shall include superintendents, wardens, deputy wardens, guards, and correctional officers of state, county, and municipal penal institutions who are certified by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 35 and employees of the Department of Juvenile Justice who are known to be employees of the department or who have given reasonable identification of their employment. The term "correctional officer" shall also include county jail officers who are certified or registered by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 35.
(2) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a correctional officer while the correctional officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
(f) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" has the same meaning as in subsection (c) of Code Section 16-5-20.
(g) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a person in the course of violating Code Section 16-8-2 where the property that was the subject of the theft was a vehicle engaged in commercial transportation of cargo or any appurtenance thereto, including without limitation any such trailer, semitrailer, container, or other associated equipment, or the cargo being transported therein or thereon, shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 20 years, a fine not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this subsection, the term "vehicle" includes without limitation any railcar.
(h) A person convicted of an offense described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
(i) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault involving the use of a firearm upon a student or teacher or other school personnel within a school safety zone as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-127.1 shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
(j) If the offense of aggravated assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
(k) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape against a child under the age of 14 years shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 25 nor more than 50 years. Any person convicted under this subsection shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
(l) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon an officer of the court while such officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years. As used in this subsection, the term "officer of the court" means a judge, attorney, clerk of court, deputy clerk of court, court reporter, court interpreter or probation officer.
I get your point. But in practice facing a dude and telling him why he is about to be placed under arrest and that he is going to be cuffed, be placed in a cop car and booked into jail, probably not get out for hours at best, car towed, etc is inviting trouble. Only person that is going to stand and listen is the guy not going to run anyway. But you will cause him anxiety. Lots of ways to do it. But inviting a discussion or debate will often lead to an argument.
Here is food for thought. Women officers frequently handle these things a bit different. It is a female thing. Going a step further, how many women cops are involved in shootings or questionable use of force? Now that number is driven by their relative numbers to begin with, but also that so few are on the tactical teams and task forces that get into the shit more frequently. Still, it is a significant data point worth some more analysis. When women first came into LE, lots of people said they would be involved in more use of force, especially shootings. That would be because of their stature and strength. They would get to force situations earlier and easier than a guy. But that has not happened. Opposite in fact.
Interesting- is there any numbers that normalize this kind of data? Do you care to expound more?
I'm also interested in how police work together? Everyone here has kind of said, "Well, all bets are off when you're in a scuffle" but isn't that like saying, "All bets are off when you're BFMing?" We still practice as a team so we know what to do, and so we make 1+1 = at least 2, if not more.
In this scenario did 1+1 = <1?
And I'm not saying it was their fault. If they aren't frequently trained to a measurable standard you can't expect someone to perform in the field. That's a systemic fault that failed these guys and could have led to the shooting. (My ASO had again...)