PDA

View Full Version : Man Shot instead of Tased and a Quistion for LEOs


rmagill
June 24, 2006, 12:46 AM
Read the story here (http://www.kitsapsun.com/bsun/local/article/0,2403,BSUN_19088_4797507,00.html).

I do NOT intend this to be a bash against police. This is simply intended as an incident from which we can all hopefully learn that just so happens to involve LEOs.

How this relates to training: had the officers trianed well enough, they should have had muscle memory down for reaching, both for a gun, but also for a taser. So, how many of us that carry non-leathal force weapons practice drawing/deploying these like we do with our gun... time to practice some more myself.

However, this article raises a question, mostly for LEOs: How can a person aim a gun at someone and think it is a taser? My understanding is that a taser is aimed using laser sights which are activated by slightly squeezing the tirgger instead of any typical sights, and I am unaware of any laser sight for a handgun that is activated by squeezing the trigger (as I understand tasers are aimed). So, am I missing something here or did someone really mess this up?

garryc
June 24, 2006, 06:00 AM
It seems kind of funny that they the cops released the name of the person shot but not of the deputy that shot him. A guy in a tree talking to himself, I'm guessing mentally ill. You can bet that if he was high the cops would have said so, that way he would be demonized in the public eye.
From what the story said, he posed no threat. Lethal force would not be justified. They said the officer made a mistake. How do you mistake a pistol for a Tazer? Either this deputy is completely incompetent or is was not a mistake. If the officer did make a mistake do to incompetence then he should loose his commission and face the civil repercussions (and maybe low level criminal too). If it turns out to be deliberate then he should go to prison just like any of us would.

Blackwater OPS
June 24, 2006, 11:09 AM
Jones was shot once in a leg after a sheriff's deputy accidentally discharged a handgun instead of a Taser.

That can't be right. He could not the the difference between a metal frame pistol and a plastic Taser?:confused: I have carried both and I don't see how one could get confused. Oh wait.....IT MUST HAVE BEEN A GLOCK!!:D

281 Quad Cam
June 24, 2006, 12:26 PM
Oh wait.....IT MUST HAVE BEEN A GLOCK!!

Definatly Glock's fault here. This could be related to the Portland PD kB's.

I will dedicate the afternoon to see if there is a connection between this and the NY phase 3 failures. ;)

Jeepmark2005
June 24, 2006, 01:39 PM
Stress. The officer was under stress and responded poorly. Most likely a lack of training but who knows.

Blackwater OPS
June 24, 2006, 01:51 PM
STRESS?!?!? There was an idiot in a tree, thats not really a stressful situation.

garryc
June 24, 2006, 02:52 PM
Stress. The officer was under stress and responded poorly. Most likely a lack of training but who knows.

STRESS?!?!? There was an idiot in a tree, that’s not really a stressful situation.

STRESS!! Please!! He's a cop, he has to deal with all kinds of people including those who are mentally ill. That he finds the situation a bother is just too darn bad for him. He gets paid to act in an appropriate manner and a guy in a tree is no threat. I'd like to see a record of his behavior toward mentally ill people, and if it is of callous disregard, drop the full weight of the law on him. I can't stand people who treat mentally ill people as if they are less than human.
They implication that a mentally ill person is an "IDIOT" is something out of the dark ages. Many mentally ill people are in fact very gifted:

Abraham Lincoln: The 16th president, one of the greatest Americans, suffered from severe, incapacitating and occasionally suicidal depressions, documented in six biographical volumes by Carl Sandburg, and in numerous articles, including, “Dark Veil of Depression” by Judy Folkenburg, National Institute of Mental Health, published in The Consumer.

Lionel Aldridge: A defensive end for Vince Lombardi’s legendary Green Bay Packers of the 1960’s, Aldridge played in two Super Bowls. In the 1970’s, he suffered from schizophrenia and was homeless for two years. He now gives inspirational talks on his battle against paranoid schizophrenia. His story has been told in numerous newspaper articles, copies of which are available from the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill.

Ludwig Beethoven: The brilliant musician experienced manic depression, documented in Beethoven by Schauffler.

Leo Tolstoy: Author of War and Peace, one of the world’s greatest novels, Tolstoy told of his own mental illness in My Confession. It is also discussed in Dynamics of Creation by Anthony Storr and Inner World of Madness by Beet Kaplan.

Edgar Allen Poe: The famous author known for his eerie, inventive works, clearly experienced mental illness as documented in The Haunted Palace: The Life of Edgar Allen Poe by Frances Winwar.

Winston Churchill: “Had he been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgement might well have concluded that we were finished,” wrote Anthony Storr in Churchill. Storr also discussed Churchill’s manic depression in his book The Dynamics of Creation.

Vivien Leigh: The actress who starred in” Gone With The Wind” suffered from mental illness, as documented in Vivien Leigh by Anne Edwards.

Sylvia Plath: The poet and novelist suffered mental illness as documented in A Memory of Sylvia Plath by Anne Edwards.

Patty Duke: The actress told of her bipolar illness in an autobiography, Call Me Anna, which became a television movie.

Charles Dickens: One of the greatest authors in the English language suffered from depression, as documented in Key To Genius by Hersham and Lieb, and Charles Dickens, Vols. I and II by Edgar Johnson.

Capt Charlie
June 24, 2006, 03:31 PM
I'm not buying it. The differences between a Taser, either the M26 or X26, and a real handgun are so great that it would be virtually impossible to confuse a handgun for a Taser. Shape, weight, size (on the X26), and the fact that both model Tasers require that a manual safety be disengaged to activate the laser sight and charge the weapon, are all profound differences.

I've used both model Tasers, including one use against a man armed with a knife, and I knew exactly what was in my hand at the time, so to me, the "stress" excuse doesn't cut it.

Based on what was reported, I'd say this officer is clearly in need of another line of employment.

As to the use of a Taser to subdue a man in a tree, I'm not sure that would be appropriate either, unless he was somehow secured to the tree by a harness, etc. A man hit by a Taser in that situation is going to fall, and if that fall is 15, 10, even 5 feet from a tree, and his muscles are locked up so that he can't try to control his landing, the chances are too high that he's going to sustain serious injury, or even death.

Topthis
June 24, 2006, 03:37 PM
Yeah...everything Capt. Charlie just said. I really can't believe that a person would even try to relate a story like this...makes him sound even more incompetent.

garryc
June 24, 2006, 03:38 PM
Based on what was reported, I'd say this officer is clearly in need of another line of employment.

Yeah, like washing dishes in his local prison chow hall. That badge does not make him better than anyone else, nor the judge of another persons value, nor above the law.

Blammer
June 24, 2006, 04:17 PM
Following a FUBAR!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sarge
June 24, 2006, 04:57 PM
This cop's name wasn't Tackleberry was it?

Wildcard
June 24, 2006, 06:27 PM
Based on what was reported, I'd say this officer is clearly in need of another line of employment.

Yep, after a trial, and proper punishment.

Samurai
June 24, 2006, 08:18 PM
Something about this story reminds me of Mel Gibson in the beginning scenes of Lethal Weapon... You know? When he handcuffs himself to the guy and jumps off the building?

Oh, and uh... Don't let that cop watch that movie!

Thought it was a Taser! That's about the stupidest excuse I've ever heard! Yeah, right!

wolfdog45
June 24, 2006, 08:19 PM
It's just plain stupid as to what that cop did. Tazing a person in a tree is not the smartest thing to do.
And to confuse his firearm with his tazer that is crazy.
This cop needs to be dismissed and get a job scrubbing bathroom floors for the rest of his life, what a dingleberry.

Nwilliams184
June 24, 2006, 09:12 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13512149/?GT1=8211

oops i didnt know someone had already posted this...oops

Capt Charlie
June 24, 2006, 09:21 PM
oops i didnt know someone had already posted this...oops
:D No problem, and you have another link with more info. Threads merged.

adephue
June 24, 2006, 10:49 PM
I guess we should all think twice about climbing a tree the next time we get a little depressed.

DonR101395
June 24, 2006, 11:35 PM
It's obviously not the preferred method to get a man out of a tree........but apparently it's effective. I wonder if the deputy would come over to my house the next time my neighbors cat gets stuck in a tree?

chrisandclauida2
June 25, 2006, 01:34 AM
tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite side from your weapon.

this has happened several times cause officers carry the taser forward orbehind the weapon on the belt or even dropped leg in the thigh.

this is bad cause like we all know in stress you revert to muscle memory and if your thinking taser you will or can draw your weapon and not even realise till its too late.

if worn properly on opposite side from the weapon there is no chance of accidentally drawing a weapon.

DonR101395
June 25, 2006, 01:40 AM
this is bad cause like we all know in stress you revert to muscle memory and if your thinking taser you will or can draw your weapon and not even realise till its too late.

What stress did she have? She had a squirrel in a tree trying to gather his nuts. If that is stressful to her she needs a new job.

razorburn
June 25, 2006, 02:18 AM
Exactly. This happened in my state. This wasn't any more stressful of a situation than a 1/2 off doughnut sale at crispy creme :rolleyes:. The guy climbed a tree. He wasn't threatening, or dangerous. He was just sitting in a tree talking to himself. The fire department and police had already been there talking to the guy for an hour before the moron walked up and shot him in the leg.

The imbecile was under zero pressure. He had all the time in the world. He could've taken out his taser, checked it out, read the owners manual, have a coffee, then check it again, and taken a refreshing 15 minute nap before acting.

Something is clearly amiss for someone to make such a terrible error. A taser and a gun don't feel or look alike nor are operated in the same way. It should've come to the guy at some point, at least while he was aiming, that he was holding his gun. Either way, this shows the deputy to either have held malicious criminal intent or to be terrifyingly incompetent. Can you imagine what would happen if one of us had done something like this? He should've been fired on the spot and subject to trial.

Jeff22
June 25, 2006, 03:53 PM
(1.) As Capt. Charlie pointed out, on the Taser you disengage a thumb safety to the "down" position to activate the laser.
(2.) Almost everybody issued a Taser in my area carries it in some kind of crossdraw holster. This makes it more difficult to make a mistake in weapon selection under stress.
(3.) Absent the issue of the tased person falling out of the tree, if there was a circumstance where you had somebody in a tree that you had to engage with a less-than-lethal weapon, a taser might not be the best option. The range is limited and the likelihood is great that one or both of the barbs would miss, hit a branch or foliage or something, and be ineffective.
(4.) The taser is a useful tool but has lots of limitations. Locally, there was a shooting in the summer of 2004 and another in April of 2006 where police were dealing with violent suicidal subjects and tried the Taser first, which didn't work, and then ended up shooting to protect themselves (one of the suspects was killed). If one of the barbs misses or doesn't stick, there is no incapacitation effect. It's just like OC -- some officers have a misplaced faith in it's effectiveness and don't have a "Plan B" in case "Plan A" doesn't work.
(5.) One of the things we try to train new officers is that just because there is an unusual situation going on doesn't necessarily mean that you have to rush in and do something, and that enforcement action is not necessarily the best or primary option in many instances. Usually the rookies figure that out once they get some experience, but some people just never "get it". The best cops (IMHO) have action oriented personlities, but you have have discretion about when to act and how and when to try to monitor a situation and wait for more help.
(6.) It's always hard to tell from a distance if the core issue in a given situation is (a.) lack of training, or (b.) the officer just "doesn't get it". Some people "get it" with minimal training, and some never do. Some people have natural aptitude to be the police and some don't have the frame of reference and never will, no matter what kind of degree they have or how many training sessions they attend. Usually (but not always) you can figure that out during a 12-week field training program when they first come on. But management often doesn't want to fail anybody during training, because (a.) it would be admitting they made an error in the selection process, (b.) they have an unreasonable fear of being sued because they don't have an understanding of the proper field training process and the relevant employement law, (c.) they're under pressure to get staffing levels up to avoid the payment of overtime or to avoid running short-staffed because it's a safety issue, and (d.) if the employee with the performance problems is a member of some "special group" and they're under pressure to get lots of "special" people on the police department.
(7.) And in general, you can NEVER take any news report seriously, because the media usually doesn't get the facts straight. Also, whoever is writing the article usually is NOT knowlegable about their subject matter, and they get it all wrong. I don't know the facts of this case, but there is often a "the rest of the story" out there someplace . . . of course, if there is, it is the responsibility of the police agency to release that information IF THEY CAN so that the facts are made public.

Jeff22
June 25, 2006, 05:45 PM
SHOOTING BY DEPUTY IN NAVY YARD CITY DESCRIBED AS "ACCIDENTAL"
Central Kitsap (Washington) Reporter

www.centralkitsapreporter.com

By Kassie Korich

Jun 24 2006

A Kitsap County Sheriff’s deputy attempted to use her Taser on a distraught man in a tree Thursday afternoon, but accidently shot him in the leg.

Police were called to a vacant lot in the 200 block of National Avenue South in Navy Yard City after a 911 call came in at 11:40 a.m. about a man in a tree.

The man, identified by authorities as William A. Jones, 32, of Bremerton, was about 20 feet up in the tree. Several deputies and firefighters from the Bremerton Fire Department were trying to bring Jones down from the tree, when eyewitnesses said, the shot rang out.

“He was making irrational statements while up in the tree, we don’t know if he was suicidal,” Sheriff’s spokesman Deputy Scott Wilson said.
A male deputy at the scene initially tried to use his Taser on Jones, but was unsuccessful.

“He requested an additional application (of a Taser),” Wilson said.

Instead of drawing her department-issued Taser from its belt holster, a deputy accidently grabbed her department-issued .40-caliber pistol and fired a single bullet into Jones’ leg. Jones was airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle where he is listed in stable condition.

“The deputy reached for what (she) thought was a Taser and instead drew a firearm,” Wilson said. “We’re looking at it as an accidental shooting and it is being investigated by the Washington State Patrol.”

“We are very concerned about the welfare of this person,” Sheriff Steve Boyer said. “But this incident, as tragic as it is, brings to the forefront two issues: Training is effective and humans do make mistakes.

“The deputies involved responded to the call and attempted to resolve this situation utilizing available resources, as they have been trained. At some point the man refused to cooperate further. A decision was made to employ a less lethal use of force again, as trained. The second deputy reacted instantaneously to the first deputy’s command, per past training, but mistakenly unholstered a firearm instead of the Taser. That, unfortunately, is human error.”

The Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office administration will review the agency’s inventory and policy regarding current Taser models, and related support items, to prevent a reoccurrence of a similar incident, according to the department. There is no plan to remove the Taser from agency service.

The deputy, a five-year veteran, has been placed on administrative leave. Officials are not releasing her name.

An anonymous eyewitness said the deputy was distressed by the shooting. “She was on her hands and knees crying, like it was an accident,” the witness said. “The way she came over and the way the deputies came over, I think it was accidental.”

According to the 911 caller, David Blakeslee, Jones had been at the lot all morning. Blakeslee could hear him talking to himself.

“He was there first thing in the morning,” Blakeslee said. “He was talking to himself at a normal tone and was talking about time on the job and what he could see there. He was having full-blown conversations. I first thought he was on a cell phone, but he wasn’t.”

Blakeslee says it was after 11 a.m. when he went across the street and found Jones strapped up in the tree and called 911.

Sheriff’s deputies arrived as well as a Bremerton Fire ladder truck. The deputies attempted to talk the man into coming down from the tree, according to Blakeslee. “They talked to him for an hour-and-a-half trying to get him to come down,” he said.

Topthis
June 25, 2006, 06:25 PM
Someone posted "malicious intent" on the part of the Deputy. I would not go that far...I mean a person would have to be a real piece of *doo doo* to actually plan on shooting someone in this case. Now...imcompetence...that is something that I totally agree with!! It will be curious what the end results of this will be...can you imagine if it were a citizen shooting someone in a tree and saying something like..."gee, I thought I had my Taser/Shocker/Pepper Spray/Hose/Deodorant or Wife's Meatloaf in my hand"??

garryc
June 25, 2006, 10:17 PM
Now...imcompetence...that is something that I totally agree with!!

I can agree with that, of course incompitance can also be criminal if it results in the direct injury of another. I know that's a slippery slope.
Still, she should be fired, and the department should not support her in any civil action that might come. I wonder if she is one of those cases that should have been probationally removed but wasn't because she is female. I also wonder if she was a man would the department have released her name.

Rainbow Six
June 26, 2006, 06:00 AM
Someone mentioned muscle memory. My guess is that some of the earlier posts hit the nail on the head. She has practiced drawing her firearm but hasn't practiced much with the Taser. Her brain said shoot him with the Taser... her muscle memory heard shoot and went for the firearm that she has probably practiced drawing for longer, and for more repititions.

And I'm with those who say that the Taser is NOT really a good option for getting someone out of a tree. I'd think you'd simply "wait and negotiate" unless there were other crazy circumstances. I'm personally not going to deploy the Taser on anyone who stands to take a fall from higher than a standing position unless there is a weapon involved and the fall is the lesser of all evils.

Lastly, it's easy for a lot of you non-cops to sit at your keyboard and second guess her actions. Until you've been there and done that, your opinion really doesn't hold any weight. On top of that, you're judging something based on a news article on it. I can tell you from experience that only a small percentage of the information printed in news articles on cases I've had personal knowledge of has been correct. It's usually grossly biased if not almost totally inaccurate.

Harley Quinn
June 26, 2006, 08:55 AM
The taser is not the best for the situation either. He/she got the guy out of the tree and should be fired for it. Simple.

HQ:o

Glenn E. Meyer
June 26, 2006, 10:20 AM
Should the officer be fired?

Here are some others:

1. A famous film clip of a female officer running up to a guy and ND into the ground

2. Another well known tv clip with a slew of officers chasing a knife holder and swaring him. A male officer runs up with an SMG and NDs. The department says the guy was struggling so Officer ND was just trying to scare him.

3. A recent one I posted - Mister Screwdriver resists the taser and with no fire discipline, an officer shoots him and another officer.

4. In Dallas, the SWAT team did a raid and 4 officers were shot - mostly by each other.

Were all these guys fired? Should they be?

garryc
June 26, 2006, 10:59 AM
Should the officer be fired?

Here are some others:

1. A famous film clip of a female officer running up to a guy and ND into the ground

2. Another well known tv clip with a slew of officers chasing a knife holder and swaring him. A male officer runs up with an SMG and NDs. The department says the guy was struggling so Officer ND was just trying to scare him.

3. A recent one I posted - Mister Screwdriver resists the taser and with no fire discipline, an officer shoots him and another officer.

4. In Dallas, the SWAT team did a raid and 4 officers were shot - mostly by each other.

Were all these guys fired? Should they be?

All the situations you point to were high stress threat. Not the one in question. Tell me, how would anyone be under stress over a guy in a tree that will not come down?
This reminds me of when we have an inmate who won't come out of his cell. We use force if negotiation fails but we don't shoot him. And its no stress, just do it by the numbers.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 26, 2006, 11:07 AM
I'm just thinking out loud. I've seen a nationally known instructor under no stress, brain fart and draw on a high level handgun class.

If you know the accident literature, it is amazing how people do stupid things under no stress. The officer in question was under some stress.

I'm not arguing for not firing her but just pointing out that such incidents can happen to anyone.

I was also wondering if the ones I mentioned got fired. They probably should if they can't function under stress. That's when we need them to.

Capt Charlie
June 26, 2006, 12:59 PM
Someone mentioned muscle memory. My guess is that some of the earlier posts hit the nail on the head. She has practiced drawing her firearm but hasn't practiced much with the Taser. Her brain said shoot him with the Taser... her muscle memory heard shoot and went for the firearm that she has probably practiced drawing for longer, and for more repititions.
Here's the problem: Law Enforcement today is a thinking man's job. It requires someone with good common sense, good judgment, and the ability to remain calm under stress. Serious mistakes in this job don't include a typo in a newspaper, or a mistake on an assembly line. The consequences of serious mistakes here are likely to include serious injury or death. Along with integrity, this is the crux of the reason that officers are held to a higher standard, and it's the reason that LE management can NOT afford to be timid in weeding out those who can't cut it.

Muscle memory, or instinctive response, is a valuable "tool" for a person, but except for the most dire of circumstances, the brain needs to be in control, not the muscle. Every situation is different, and every person has a different point at which muscle memory kicks in, but we simply can't afford to have those who employ muscle memory at the wrong time, whether consciously or not.

Should the officer be fired?
Good question, Glenn. This is usually the toughest question facing any supervisor; most understand the gravity of ending someone's career. Anyone who simply does a Donald Trump "You're fired", without conscience, is a poor supervisor.

I can only tell you how I do it. The very first thing I consider, is whether or not there was intent. An officer who intentionally violates law or policy is easy to deal with, and I believe in progressive discipline when I can.

Unintentional mistakes though, are more difficult to deal with. There, I look at that officer's history. Is (s)he a constant screw-up? Will counseling or remedial training resolve the problem? Transfer to another assignment? If none of the above are successful, it's time to take harsh steps. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

I doubt there was intent in this deputy's actions, but the seriousness of her mistake warrants serious supervisory action. She apparently is a 5-year veteran, so she doesn't rate the tolerance I'd give to a rookie, but as to whether or not she should be fired, I can't make that judgment and recommedation without access to her history. If numerous screw-ups are on record, and remedial training failed to correct the problem, then so be it. On the other hand, if I look at her record and see commendations, numerous good arrests, few uses of force, etc., then I'm prone to recommend that we attempt to salvage her.

One thing's for sure: If a LE supervisor errs, it must be in favor of the public's safety, no matter how tough the decision is.

Sarge
June 26, 2006, 01:23 PM
Charlie, your post remided me of a succint explanation of that thinking that I received in the academy, 30-odd years ago (it's those odd years that'll get ya;) ). Went something like this-

"Mistakes of the mind can be forgiven, often corrected. Mistakes of the mind happen to all of us. Mistakes of the heart- now that's a different story. Those are based in poor ethics, and they'll cost you your career, your family- and maybe even your freedom."

The lesson was easy to remember.

Rainbow Six
June 26, 2006, 04:13 PM
Here's the problem: Law Enforcement today is a thinking man's job. It requires someone with good common sense, good judgment, and the ability to remain calm under stress. Serious mistakes in this job don't include a typo in a newspaper, or a mistake on an assembly line. The consequences of serious mistakes here are likely to include serious injury or death. Along with integrity, this is the crux of the reason that officers are held to a higher standard, and it's the reason that LE management can NOT afford to be timid in weeding out those who can't cut it.



Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. In fact I counselled an employee just last night on the difference between screwing up on her job and getting someone's order wrong at McDonalds. Her attitude was that her mistakes were "little ones" and that a big deal was being made of nothing. And that's what we're working with...

As for screening and weeding, the sad fact is that to fill positions/zones a lot of us front line shift level supervisors are force fed the ones that should have been rejects. We are tasked with trying to keep them in line and turn them into the best officers we can. In fact in a lot of cases some of us have warned admin pre-hire on certain applicants based on working side by side with them while they worked with smaller agencies within our jurisdiciton...

Some still get hired with stipulations and we're told to make their probation intensive to ensure the problems from elsewhere do not follow them here. Some come clean with proper supervision and training... Some suck. Not all of the ones that suck get cut. And that's where things can get ugly for all involved...

Capt Charlie
June 26, 2006, 04:53 PM
As for screening and weeding, the sad fact is that to fill positions/zones a lot of us front line shift level supervisors are force fed the ones that should have been rejects. We are tasked with trying to keep them in line and turn them into the best officers we can.
And this is a real problem at far too many agencies. It puts mid-level supervisors between the proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place. We know they shouldn't be out there, have strongly recommended that they not be out there, and still, if they screw up, our own future is in question through vicarious liability.

The only answer, sadly, has been said time and again: Document, document, document!! Meticulous records of actions taken and recommendations concerning problem officers is the only thing that can save your bacon in a civil suit and shift the blame to where it should have been in the first place.

okiejack
June 26, 2006, 05:14 PM
That lady shouldn't be carrying a firearm.

I knew a Deputy that shot the lead guitarist in the hand by accident. A few years later that same Deputy shot himself in the hand, accidentally. Some people just don't have the skills necessary to be law enforcement agents.

Rainbow Six
June 26, 2006, 05:18 PM
And this is a real problem at far too many agencies. It puts mid-level supervisors between the proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place. We know they shouldn't be out there, have strongly recommended that they not be out there, and still, if they screw up, our own future is in question through vicarious liability.

The only answer, sadly, has been said time and again: Document, document, document!! Meticulous records of actions taken and recommendations concerning problem officers is the only thing that can save your bacon in a civil suit and shift the blame to where it should have been in the first place.

And document I do... CYA!!! :D

FMUStewart
June 26, 2006, 06:07 PM
Until you've been there and done that, your opinion really doesn't hold any weight

Listen here, "Deputy Sheriff" - Non-LEO's opinions DO hold weight, and may be the determining factor should this case ever make it to court. If you were to ever to become the REAL Sheriff, all of the little non-LEO opinions would also hold a lot of weight.

I'm not weighing in either way on the topic (its a new article...a blip in the bigger picture), but you're blatently condescending attitude towards those people that you serve is nonsense and is shameful to your community....

...God's sheep...

Stew

razorburn
June 26, 2006, 06:21 PM
Lots of us have been there. We have ccw's and practice with them. People have kids who climb trees and playground equipment and then not want to leave. Amazingly, we somehow manage to not shoot them. Does that count? :D

Harley Quinn
June 26, 2006, 07:11 PM
Now you have this to ponder:

Both weapons were very inapropriate. Why would you tase someone in a tree?
Why would you shoot him if there is not a threat to you or others (beside tree person).

Conversation was something like, come on down. No. Boom.

Sometimes people have to be protected for their own good.

Fire Dept should have been called. Ladder up to the guy and get him down.
Negotiation or hey leave him alone. Now you have me wondering about the SGT on the scene, if any.

Fire um both.

Rules of engagement always know your back ground. What if she missed and the bullet took out some one down the street a mile away?

To me this is a no brainer, counseling for preperation to lose job and let her go.

HQ

Rainbow Six
June 26, 2006, 09:45 PM
Listen here, "Deputy Sheriff" - Non-LEO's opinions DO hold weight, and may be the determining factor should this case ever make it to court. If you were to ever to become the REAL Sheriff, all of the little non-LEO opinions would also hold a lot of weight.

I'm not weighing in either way on the topic (its a new article...a blip in the bigger picture), but you're blatently condescending attitude towards those people that you serve is nonsense and is shameful to your community....

I can see how my post could have come across wrong but I never meant to be condescending and imply that I don't care what non-LE thinks. That's not the case at all. In fact I am one of the seemingly few these days that do care how I treat people and how they feel about their experience with me as a LEO. I conduct my business with the public like I would want to be treated and like I would want my family treated if they needed an officer for something. I have nothing to defend on that front and nothing to prove. Just making a point in reply to your comment.

My actual point was, and is that until you've been under the same stress an officer was under in a given situation you don't know exactly how you yourself would have reacted. Even if you've done something many times you're not guaranteed to do it right, or even the same way next time it happens. I've seen seasoned officers have brain freeze on scenes and drop the ball (luckily so far nobody was hurt as a result) on things that they had handled many times before. It's called being human and making mistakes.

I never meant that public opinion of LE actions isn't warranted or justified. I believe it absolutely is. I'm definitely not a "Police State" type. I like my freedom and the checks and balances just as much as most other citizens. What I meant was that people who haven't walked a mile in the officer's shoes and operated under the stress they operate under in some situations have no right to blow off at the mouth and Monday morning quarterback an officer's actions as if they know they could/would have handled it better. Having the opinion that the officer *REALLY* flubbed up and should be fired is one's own prerogative. I have no beef with that. What I have a beef with is the folks who blast off at the mouth saying that there's no way it could be an accident. They have no idea what can happen under the stress we are under sometimes.

They also have no idea what the true, exact circumstances were when the incident took place. They make these rash judgements based on the face value of this article of unknown accuracy and the almost guaranteed sketchy details at best. And that, sir, holds no weight with those of us who have walked that mile. That was my point. It would be the same if I were reading an article about someone making a mistake on their job in the heat of the moment and blasting off my judgement of them without having been under the same conditions and also without the totality of the circumstances.

I'm sorry if my original comment was worded poorly and you took it as condescending. I never intended it to come across that way. I was simply stating that some here have made comments as if they know what they are talking about but unless they've "been there and done that" they have no clue. I hope that makes better sense.

Rainbow Six
June 26, 2006, 09:48 PM
Lots of us have been there. We have ccw's and practice with them. People have kids who climb trees and playground equipment and then not want to leave. Amazingly, we somehow manage to not shoot them. Does that count? :D

I don't have kids but I think maybe you have a point! LOL! :D

FirstFreedom
June 27, 2006, 12:21 PM
1. Tasers should not have such a gun-like profile/appearance - they should have a different grip angle (none - like a remote control), OR they should not be worn in a belt holster, but somewhere altogether different, such as just in the squad car, or say, crossdraw on left thigh for example, so that there is no confusion.

2. Of course, "Only the police should have guns", right, Brady Bunch?

Rainbow Six
June 27, 2006, 03:14 PM
Gotta disagree with leaving it in the car. In most of my deploys the need for it arose rather quickly. Ya can't call time out and run to the car for it when you need it. An LE tool that is left in the car is worthless...