Did anyone see the video of those policemen railing that SUV with bullets yesterday? - Page 4

TheeBadOne · May 12, 2005, 06:24 PM

faraway so if I read correctly, you're speaking about two incidents that happened a long time ago (Goetz and barrio).

shield20 · May 12, 2005, 06:37 PM

Yeah Bull - I give 'em the benefit of the doubt. We can read about events/watch the videos and try to figure out what we might have done different - but other then possibly hitting what we are aiming at a higher percentage

, I don't know enough in this case to say too much more.

On my PD we had guys that were shooters, and guys that weren't. A bunch of us just loved going to the range when ever possible. And we had guys you would want by your side should something go down (usually the same guys), and guys you wouldn't. I trained, I practiced stuff, I have been in tough situations, luckily, I never had anything happen that was...definetively a life and death struggle; I liked to think I would do Ok - make all the right moves, make the good shots - but I just REALLY don't know...practice is one thing, experience is another. It is hard to 2nd guess others unless it is blatantly obvious they F'd up.

As for civilian vs LE - as a civilian I don't like that LEs get extra leeway in carrying, in federal CCW once retired, access to otherwise limited equipment. At 1st look the extra training might be a justification - but then why can't civilians get the same training? Like someone said many civilians are more serious about their training and more knowlegable about the use of firearms. Does an LE's service constitute a reason for extra rewards? It is a noble profession no doubt, but one they chose freely. I recently realized because of another thread that in the end it only makes another group, another class, in the "have and have nots". Us mere civilians are left unarmed and vulnerable, while the elites make the decisions that we can't be trusted with the means to defend ourselves.

I am not bitter that retired LEs can carry federally, or get an advantage in magazine capacity, or weapon or ammo choice - they have the clout and the means to get the proper laws passed. I just don't agree with the ones who line up with the Sara Brady groups of the world to deny "me' the same rights.
**************
So Why Do so many Americans Believe Cops Want More Gun Control
In part because that is what gun control advocates want you to believe. In their campaign to pass legislation the Brady Bill and the 1994 gun ban, for example, pro-gun control forces routinely called on cops to help make their case. Mostly big city chiefs and political appointees, (what we at LEAA like to call “photo op cops”) these few police bureaucrats have helped create a public impression that America’s cops favor gun control. (In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!)
****************
Most cops are probably pro-gun (I think there are many things in common with alot of armed civilians that led them to LE in the 1st place).

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20...susguncon.html

I know when I was on the job that, besides making a difference, just like now I wanted to go home to my family at the end of the day. I am sure all of you guys and gals want the same thing - to have the right and the means to protect yourselves, your partners, and/or your loved ones. So I can't question too much other's people behavior in a situation THEY thought was lethal - and definetly VERY stressfull.

FrankDrebin · May 12, 2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

On my PD we had guys that were shooters, and guys that weren't. A bunch of us just loved going to the range when ever possible. And we had guys you would want by your side should something go down (usually the same guys), and guys you wouldn't.

I worked with a woman who wasn't really what I would call a "shooter". The day her parter was shot and killed, she was also shot in the gut and went down. She was still able to shoot the bad guy in the back of the head at a good 10-20 yards.

shield20 · May 12, 2005, 06:52 PM

Sorry about her partner - and very good for her. I do hope she is OK!

BatmanX · May 12, 2005, 08:15 PM

TheBadOne.

Same goes here in MN. (per the training/education post - mostly done by department after the POST requirement)
Not sure where you are - and were you actually born in 1923?

FrankDrebin · May 12, 2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Sorry about her partner - and very good for her. I do hope she is OK!

This was a while ago, probably about 15 years ago....She ended up retiring on a disability with some internal injuries.

faraway · May 12, 2005, 10:57 PM

Bad one...correct about Geotz.
The barrio incidents, not that long back. However, these kind of events are still happening in that particular part of Colorado. Still stay in touch with the people that I knew there. And anyway, it seems some places never change much.
Used these as examples because the environment is closer to the situation alluded to in the initial posting. Some of the other places which I reside or resided, the analogies are not as apt because of the environmental situations.
For example, here on the reservation, many of the goings on would be difficult to present (or have others understand); in an example of this sort;because a whole set of very unique conditions make this place difficult to place in generally comprehensible terms.
Still, the operative concern in a incident of this manner, is the level to which it might increase public distrust and unease about LE, within that community.
Both here on the reservation and in the barrios, an event of this nature does tend to exponentially increase the level of distrust between the public and the agents of the legal system. And that, might be an element which could cause more unease in Compton in the next few weeks.
So whether or not the LE people in this situation were entirely in the right (or in the wrong), the consequent events might lead to much worse.

TheeBadOne · May 12, 2005, 11:56 PM

You have no solution to propose, just pointing out "problems"?

xXStarScreamXx · May 13, 2005, 12:19 AM

Maybe more selctive screening and more time qualifying. some of my friends are cops and some of them i think they just qualify by sleeping wiht the instructors. Seriously, my little sister out shoots them.

FrankDrebin · May 13, 2005, 05:31 AM

Shooting people is about .002% of what the police do. If you're going to use resources for more training, it should be spent on things like pursuit driving and pursuit decision-making to have a more effective bang for the buck, pun intended. Given the number of people killed each year by stray police bullets, I think the police are acceptably trained in that area.

Bullrock · May 13, 2005, 09:36 AM

Nice post. I had the same experience with those who didn't take much pride in their profession.

I think this threads been beaten to death, so I'm gonna take a hike. Lookin forward to being a Beretta owner in August when the Px4 Storm is available.

faraway · May 13, 2005, 11:09 AM

Neither side of this debate is posting solutions. The side which holds that this incident was an disaster, acknowledges that, but can not easily state what to do. The other, holds to a response that the LE people involved had a justified response, simply because of their legal status, or because of a stated level of threat. The first, assumes trouble. The second, ignores trouble.
Without being closer to the event, or for that matter, not being anonymous (or partially so) internet word breeders, it is difficult for any here to post a fully legitimate 'solution'. Additionally, the realization that noting the problems could eventually led to a solution is basic epistemology. In other words, the assumption that not acknowledging the problems inherent to a situation like this, or assuming that one who does note the problems is somehow non-constructive, is also problematic thinking.
Ok, some potential 'solutions', for whatever worth these might be under the aforementioned parameters. (Some of which, no doubt the city is already enacting)
First, the city needs to send counselors and PR people to the neighborhood subjected to this incident. Or make it very clear they are willing to do so if asked.
Second, information needs to 'slip' regarding any past criminal record of the driver of the the car. Yes, I'm quite aware that this could be cited/used as prejudicial in a later trial, by a competant attorney. But in order to negate public perception of LE overreaction, it's one effective counter-propaganda the city could use.
Third, a public statement that city/departmental policies on the use of deadly force will be subject to review; both internally and by special public commissions. With a set date to provide a statement by both entities.
Fourth, the names of all involved in this incident should be publically posted. Including for the LEO's any awards/citations or disciplinary actions. One of the problems in matters of this type is a public perception that the authorities wish anonymity to disguise improper actions. It might put some involved at a increased risk, but the minute they put that uniform on, they became public figures, and should expect clear public view of their status and activities.
Five, the city is probably already contacting community and church leaders. That should continue in an attempt to ensure local voices are willing to speak out should the repurcussions of this incident, start to heat up.
Six, LEO people should present an enhanced PR presence in the local schools, especially the lower schools. And do so, with uniforms/suits etc, but without bearing evident weapons. An incident of this nature, will tend to make young kids in an area like this, worry that they would be at risk from LE. That perception needs to be negated.
Seven, increase presence of unmarked cars, discrete survellance (sp) in the area where the incident occured. More information about community responses needs to be collected, without the potentially inflammatory presence of an increase of marked patrols.
OK, solutions, called your card, let's see yours...

BatmanX · May 13, 2005, 11:32 AM

Solutions?:

1. PULL OVER NEXT TIME THE COPS FLASH LIGHTS AT YOU!
2. Make it known that attempting to kill a cop will net the same result. (The individual tried to run over a cop) This in and of itself will net the same result shown in the video in a lot of instances. It appeared that they were not going to give him the option to do it again.
3. No one has confirmed or denied that he had a weapon. If the report was that he had a weapon, couple with #2, then open fire.
4. Should that many cops have used that many bullets? I can't decide that. Obviously they didn't use enough, but they may have run out of mags and therefore only shot 120 - as the suspect was not killed.
5. We need to state the obvious cause no one has. IT IS COMPTON! This is not exactly your white picket fence neighborhood. Someone tries to run over a cop in Compton, what do you think is going to happen?

I do not applaud the actions, but again, none of us Monday morning QBs have an appropriate amount of information for this scenario. Had the person stepped out with a rifle or weapon, this conversation would not be happening.

I think it comes down to the fact that the person fled, tried to run over a cop, and MAY have had a weapon. The use of deadly force when taking these 3 items into consideration, is justified IMHO.

xXStarScreamXx · May 13, 2005, 12:08 PM

The car is a weapon and I believe the cops should have shot him, no issue there but they neglected rules of safety.

-Know your target and what is behind it. As evident by the fact they shot each other. They are on opposite sides of a car shooting at each other. Bullets will go through glass .

-Do not point a gun at anything youre not willing to destroy. - The cop pointed his gun at camera people and probably other people with his finger in the guard ( i think ill re watch it when I get home) This is basic stuff, what if one of the other cops railing away had a ricochet or hell what if they were shooting at him, he got scared gun goes off and he blows a kid away. We cant see what's behind the camera maybe a nun and some 5 year old schoolgirls he just waved a 9mm at.

I'm not a cop( im going to go reserve once i get out of school and get a job in my industry), but I'm also not a cop hater. I have alot of respect for the men and women who put it on the line for us, but saying all criticism of them is hatred is wrong.

As far as wasting resources on training because they only shoot people .02% of the time: apparently they can only hit people .02%of the time (.03333% in actuality, 4 times out of 120 shots.) The people are professionals, what if we expected the same percentages out of doctors, engineers (like me), and pilots? If part of your job is to be able to use a gun then you might want to practice, it could save your life and the lives of people around. Population densities are getting higher and higher, misplaced bullets are going to kill people. What more important, making sure cops take a few extra days in the range rahter than writing parking tickets or little Billy getting a hole drilled in his head?

buzz_knox · May 13, 2005, 12:46 PM

I may have missed it, but was there ever a timeline given as to when the vehicle moved towards the cops? Did the police fire and the vehicle then move, or did the vehicle move and the police opened up in response?

FrankDrebin · May 13, 2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

The people are professionals, what if we expected the same percentages out of doctors, engineers (like me), and pilots?

Well....what was the hit rate of either fighter pilots or bomber pilots using iron sights during the past century? I bet more Americans have been killed by errant bombs or bullets coming from an airplane than by errant bullets coming from cops' guns...Give us some smart bullets that work and we'll use them.

As far as doctors vs. cops, I believe that police officers kill far fewer innocent people through negligence than doctors do.

As far as too many bullets, the standard answer in court to a question like "Why did you feel the need to fire 12 rounds" is "Because I felt 13 would have been too many."

Spotted Owl · May 13, 2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

I may have missed it, but was there ever a timeline given as to when the vehicle moved towards the cops? Did the police fire and the vehicle then move, or did the vehicle move and the police opened up in response?

I've seen the video multiple times, and it looks to me like the vehicle was stopped, the cops started shooting, and then the vehicle started moving. It looked to me like the car had an automatic transmission and the driver just took his foot off the brake and the car started creeping forward when the shooting started. None of us knows, however, what took place before the start of the video.

buzz_knox · May 13, 2005, 03:12 PM

Thanks. That's what I was wondering. If the guy got shot/shot at, movement of the vehicle might have been reflexive or an attempt to escape, rather than the homicidal act some are portraying it as.

CarlosDJackal · May 13, 2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Other than the horrid tactics, I really can't fault them that much. It is easy being armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight, seeing things from the camera's viewpoint. Now, that circular shootout? Duh, what were they thinking?...

Two words: TUINNEL VISION. As the saying oes, stress can be a Mutha!!

TheeBadOne · May 13, 2005, 03:53 PM

1) Vehicle pauses

2) Engine races

3) Tires squeal

4) Heads toward Officer

5) Officer shoots immediately

faraway · May 13, 2005, 08:16 PM

Yeesh, the desperate analogies being tossed around here....

Are we to assume that wartime accidental fire is the equivalent of police accidental shootings?. No doubt American's were killed as a result of misplaced aircraft rounds. But wartime flight over Berlin in 1944, or Regensburg in 1943, are not in anyway similar to civilian streets in peacetime. That's pushing the cops as soldiers analogy way, way too far. Those of you who still are part of the court system, are civilians...and it's not a war and your not soldiers. That kind of thinking leads to concepts like, suppressive fire being an appropriate tactic...or gods save us...potentially that mess in Compton. And once LE as a system, truly believes that it is a 'war', and that they are 'soldiers', whatever lingering freedoms this country still retains, will die. Or others will have to die to preserve them. A bad concept and an even worse precedent.
Doctors, no doubt the rate of medical malpractice and attendant death is very high. Doctors are a essentially privilaged class in our society. But, people make a free choice (of some type) to engage a physician. Having a stray round fired into your house is not a free choice.
Because it's Compton?...the assumption then is that it's perfectly OK to have appalling weapon control, simply because it's Compton? But it's not permissible in white picket fence neighborhoods? No doubt the people in Compton will be comforted by that surety.
Bad One, no contention with your sequence of events. If the firing is justified, and some manner of control is exerted over the weapon when it's used...that's one of the things a professional should be trained to handle, even when under the appalling stress inherent to a situation like the one which started the thread. Stress response, and all the weird things which can happen under that condition, is not a rationale for endangering an entire neighborhood. Or shooting one of your compatriots.
No doubt some posting on this forum might have handled the incident much more effectively. The gentry in the video, did not, and as a result, there may be hell to pay in Compton. And it's very interesting that so few have posted as to the means to negate what could happen in the community as a result of this incident.
And this thread is getting too weird...so I'm out.

BatmanX · May 13, 2005, 09:34 PM

faraway:

Thank god you are done. Cause you don't read posts, you read what you WANT to read and then put nonsense to them. sheesh. Try reading people's posts over - out loud might help you. It appears you are the only one that doesn't understand.

I take it you don't understand what Compton is.
A little FYI - it isn't a nice neighborhood. It is probably one of the WORST hoods you will never go to. Poor, high crime, etc. Are you telling me that the cops in a white picket community handle things the same as a ghetto? Dude, you have no clue.

FrankDrebin · May 13, 2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

what if we expected the same percentages out of doctors, engineers (like me),

Well, if we did, there would be a lot of engineers in prison over the exploding Ford Pinto....the Space Shuttle....Cribs that infants were strangled in...etc.....did any engineers go to prison for any of those?? I guess we hold them to a lower standard than cops...

faraway · May 13, 2005, 11:27 PM

Batman...I've lived in places equal to or worse than Compton.
How the hell would you know...
And I do read these posts...and have come to the conclusion that the Firing Line is little more than a collection of people who either want to find a reason to shoot something, or find excuse those who do kill without cause. And that is nonsense. Maybe when some of you actually do have to kill, it won't seem so damn appealling.
So I'm delisting.

claude783 · May 14, 2005, 09:28 AM

Here on the local radio talk show, it was mentioned that the Police dispatcher told the officers that the suspect was armed, dangerous and being sought for murder.

It was also mentioned on the talk show that the guy in the suv had his radio on and didn't know he was being followed until the officer pulled in front of him...probably began shooting at that point and the guy tried getting the hell out of there not realizing that he was "blocked" in. At that point spent the next few minutes "crapping" his pants as he tried to curl into a ball under the dash board!

Don't know how true the KFI 640 talk show progarm was!

They did release the radio communication informing the officers of this man being wanted, armed, and dangerous!

May 12, 2005, 08:15 PM	#80
BatmanX Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 266	same here. TheBadOne. Same goes here in MN. (per the training/education post - mostly done by department after the POST requirement) Not sure where you are - and were you actually born in 1923? __________________ NRA Life Member Current shopping list: Bersa Thunder 9mm CZ SP01 Current Ownage: CZ-P01 Bersa .380 (Duo tone) Kel Tec P3AT (SG) Stoeger 2000 (black syn.) 26" Winchester Model 97 12 gauge FULL Marlin Firearms Model 60 22LR

May 13, 2005, 12:19 AM	#84
xXStarScreamXx Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2005 Location: Nor*Cal 707 Posts: 353	Maybe more selctive screening and more time qualifying. some of my friends are cops and some of them i think they just qualify by sleeping wiht the instructors. Seriously, my little sister out shoots them. __________________ I still don't see why cannibalism is a crime.

May 13, 2005, 09:36 AM	#86
Bullrock Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2004 Posts: 2,686	Hey Shield Nice post. I had the same experience with those who didn't take much pride in their profession. I think this threads been beaten to death, so I'm gonna take a hike. Lookin forward to being a Beretta owner in August when the Px4 Storm is available.

May 13, 2005, 11:32 AM	#88
BatmanX Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 266	Solutions?: 1. PULL OVER NEXT TIME THE COPS FLASH LIGHTS AT YOU! 2. Make it known that attempting to kill a cop will net the same result. (The individual tried to run over a cop) This in and of itself will net the same result shown in the video in a lot of instances. It appeared that they were not going to give him the option to do it again. 3. No one has confirmed or denied that he had a weapon. If the report was that he had a weapon, couple with #2, then open fire. 4. Should that many cops have used that many bullets? I can't decide that. Obviously they didn't use enough, but they may have run out of mags and therefore only shot 120 - as the suspect was not killed. 5. We need to state the obvious cause no one has. IT IS COMPTON! This is not exactly your white picket fence neighborhood. Someone tries to run over a cop in Compton, what do you think is going to happen? I do not applaud the actions, but again, none of us Monday morning QBs have an appropriate amount of information for this scenario. Had the person stepped out with a rifle or weapon, this conversation would not be happening. I think it comes down to the fact that the person fled, tried to run over a cop, and MAY have had a weapon. The use of deadly force when taking these 3 items into consideration, is justified IMHO. __________________ NRA Life Member Current shopping list: Bersa Thunder 9mm CZ SP01 Current Ownage: CZ-P01 Bersa .380 (Duo tone) Kel Tec P3AT (SG) Stoeger 2000 (black syn.) 26" Winchester Model 97 12 gauge FULL Marlin Firearms Model 60 22LR

May 13, 2005, 12:08 PM	#89
xXStarScreamXx Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2005 Location: Nor*Cal 707 Posts: 353	The car is a weapon and I believe the cops should have shot him, no issue there but they neglected rules of safety. -Know your target and what is behind it. As evident by the fact they shot each other. They are on opposite sides of a car shooting at each other. Bullets will go through glass . -Do not point a gun at anything youre not willing to destroy. - The cop pointed his gun at camera people and probably other people with his finger in the guard ( i think ill re watch it when I get home) This is basic stuff, what if one of the other cops railing away had a ricochet or hell what if they were shooting at him, he got scared gun goes off and he blows a kid away. We cant see what's behind the camera maybe a nun and some 5 year old schoolgirls he just waved a 9mm at. I'm not a cop( im going to go reserve once i get out of school and get a job in my industry), but I'm also not a cop hater. I have alot of respect for the men and women who put it on the line for us, but saying all criticism of them is hatred is wrong. As far as wasting resources on training because they only shoot people .02% of the time: apparently they can only hit people .02%of the time (.03333% in actuality, 4 times out of 120 shots.) The people are professionals, what if we expected the same percentages out of doctors, engineers (like me), and pilots? If part of your job is to be able to use a gun then you might want to practice, it could save your life and the lives of people around. Population densities are getting higher and higher, misplaced bullets are going to kill people. What more important, making sure cops take a few extra days in the range rahter than writing parking tickets or little Billy getting a hole drilled in his head? __________________ I still don't see why cannibalism is a crime.

May 12, 2005, 06:24 PM	#76
TheeBadOne Junior member Join Date: January 12, 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,191	faraway so if I read correctly, you're speaking about two incidents that happened a long time ago (Goetz and barrio).

May 12, 2005, 06:37 PM	#77
shield20 Senior Member Join Date: April 13, 2005 Location: Hudson Valley, New York Posts: 1,371	Yeah Bull - I give 'em the benefit of the doubt. We can read about events/watch the videos and try to figure out what we might have done different - but other then possibly hitting what we are aiming at a higher percentage , I don't know enough in this case to say too much more. On my PD we had guys that were shooters, and guys that weren't. A bunch of us just loved going to the range when ever possible. And we had guys you would want by your side should something go down (usually the same guys), and guys you wouldn't. I trained, I practiced stuff, I have been in tough situations, luckily, I never had anything happen that was...definetively a life and death struggle; I liked to think I would do Ok - make all the right moves, make the good shots - but I just REALLY don't know...practice is one thing, experience is another. It is hard to 2nd guess others unless it is blatantly obvious they F'd up. As for civilian vs LE - as a civilian I don't like that LEs get extra leeway in carrying, in federal CCW once retired, access to otherwise limited equipment. At 1st look the extra training might be a justification - but then why can't civilians get the same training? Like someone said many civilians are more serious about their training and more knowlegable about the use of firearms. Does an LE's service constitute a reason for extra rewards? It is a noble profession no doubt, but one they chose freely. I recently realized because of another thread that in the end it only makes another group, another class, in the "have and have nots". Us mere civilians are left unarmed and vulnerable, while the elites make the decisions that we can't be trusted with the means to defend ourselves. I am not bitter that retired LEs can carry federally, or get an advantage in magazine capacity, or weapon or ammo choice - they have the clout and the means to get the proper laws passed. I just don't agree with the ones who line up with the Sara Brady groups of the world to deny "me' the same rights. ************ So Why Do so many Americans Believe Cops Want More Gun Control In part because that is what gun control advocates want you to believe. In their campaign to pass legislation the Brady Bill and the 1994 gun ban, for example, pro-gun control forces routinely called on cops to help make their case. Mostly big city chiefs and political appointees, (what we at LEAA like to call “photo op cops”) these few police bureaucrats have helped create a public impression that America’s cops favor gun control. (In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!) ************** Most cops are probably pro-gun (I think there are many things in common with alot of armed civilians that led them to LE in the 1st place). http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20...susguncon.html I know when I was on the job that, besides making a difference, just like now I wanted to go home to my family at the end of the day. I am sure all of you guys and gals want the same thing - to have the right and the means to protect yourselves, your partners, and/or your loved ones. So I can't question too much other's people behavior in a situation THEY thought was lethal - and definetly VERY stressfull.

May 12, 2005, 06:52 PM	#79
shield20 Senior Member Join Date: April 13, 2005 Location: Hudson Valley, New York Posts: 1,371	Sorry about her partner - and very good for her. I do hope she is OK!

May 12, 2005, 10:57 PM	#82
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Bad one...correct about Geotz. The barrio incidents, not that long back. However, these kind of events are still happening in that particular part of Colorado. Still stay in touch with the people that I knew there. And anyway, it seems some places never change much. Used these as examples because the environment is closer to the situation alluded to in the initial posting. Some of the other places which I reside or resided, the analogies are not as apt because of the environmental situations. For example, here on the reservation, many of the goings on would be difficult to present (or have others understand); in an example of this sort;because a whole set of very unique conditions make this place difficult to place in generally comprehensible terms. Still, the operative concern in a incident of this manner, is the level to which it might increase public distrust and unease about LE, within that community. Both here on the reservation and in the barrios, an event of this nature does tend to exponentially increase the level of distrust between the public and the agents of the legal system. And that, might be an element which could cause more unease in Compton in the next few weeks. So whether or not the LE people in this situation were entirely in the right (or in the wrong), the consequent events might lead to much worse.

May 12, 2005, 11:56 PM	#83
TheeBadOne Junior member Join Date: January 12, 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,191	You have no solution to propose, just pointing out "problems"?

May 13, 2005, 05:31 AM	#85
FrankDrebin Junior member Join Date: May 21, 2004 Posts: 1,101	Shooting people is about .002% of what the police do. If you're going to use resources for more training, it should be spent on things like pursuit driving and pursuit decision-making to have a more effective bang for the buck, pun intended. Given the number of people killed each year by stray police bullets, I think the police are acceptably trained in that area.

May 13, 2005, 11:09 AM	#87
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Neither side of this debate is posting solutions. The side which holds that this incident was an disaster, acknowledges that, but can not easily state what to do. The other, holds to a response that the LE people involved had a justified response, simply because of their legal status, or because of a stated level of threat. The first, assumes trouble. The second, ignores trouble. Without being closer to the event, or for that matter, not being anonymous (or partially so) internet word breeders, it is difficult for any here to post a fully legitimate 'solution'. Additionally, the realization that noting the problems could eventually led to a solution is basic epistemology. In other words, the assumption that not acknowledging the problems inherent to a situation like this, or assuming that one who does note the problems is somehow non-constructive, is also problematic thinking. Ok, some potential 'solutions', for whatever worth these might be under the aforementioned parameters. (Some of which, no doubt the city is already enacting) First, the city needs to send counselors and PR people to the neighborhood subjected to this incident. Or make it very clear they are willing to do so if asked. Second, information needs to 'slip' regarding any past criminal record of the driver of the the car. Yes, I'm quite aware that this could be cited/used as prejudicial in a later trial, by a competant attorney. But in order to negate public perception of LE overreaction, it's one effective counter-propaganda the city could use. Third, a public statement that city/departmental policies on the use of deadly force will be subject to review; both internally and by special public commissions. With a set date to provide a statement by both entities. Fourth, the names of all involved in this incident should be publically posted. Including for the LEO's any awards/citations or disciplinary actions. One of the problems in matters of this type is a public perception that the authorities wish anonymity to disguise improper actions. It might put some involved at a increased risk, but the minute they put that uniform on, they became public figures, and should expect clear public view of their status and activities. Five, the city is probably already contacting community and church leaders. That should continue in an attempt to ensure local voices are willing to speak out should the repurcussions of this incident, start to heat up. Six, LEO people should present an enhanced PR presence in the local schools, especially the lower schools. And do so, with uniforms/suits etc, but without bearing evident weapons. An incident of this nature, will tend to make young kids in an area like this, worry that they would be at risk from LE. That perception needs to be negated. Seven, increase presence of unmarked cars, discrete survellance (sp) in the area where the incident occured. More information about community responses needs to be collected, without the potentially inflammatory presence of an increase of marked patrols. OK, solutions, called your card, let's see yours...

May 13, 2005, 12:46 PM	#90
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	I may have missed it, but was there ever a timeline given as to when the vehicle moved towards the cops? Did the police fire and the vehicle then move, or did the vehicle move and the police opened up in response?

May 13, 2005, 03:12 PM	#93
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	Thanks. That's what I was wondering. If the guy got shot/shot at, movement of the vehicle might have been reflexive or an attempt to escape, rather than the homicidal act some are portraying it as.

May 13, 2005, 03:53 PM	#95
TheeBadOne Junior member Join Date: January 12, 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,191	1) Vehicle pauses 2) Engine races 3) Tires squeal 4) Heads toward Officer 5) Officer shoots immediately

May 13, 2005, 08:16 PM	#96
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Yeesh, the desperate analogies being tossed around here.... Are we to assume that wartime accidental fire is the equivalent of police accidental shootings?. No doubt American's were killed as a result of misplaced aircraft rounds. But wartime flight over Berlin in 1944, or Regensburg in 1943, are not in anyway similar to civilian streets in peacetime. That's pushing the cops as soldiers analogy way, way too far. Those of you who still are part of the court system, are civilians...and it's not a war and your not soldiers. That kind of thinking leads to concepts like, suppressive fire being an appropriate tactic...or gods save us...potentially that mess in Compton. And once LE as a system, truly believes that it is a 'war', and that they are 'soldiers', whatever lingering freedoms this country still retains, will die. Or others will have to die to preserve them. A bad concept and an even worse precedent. Doctors, no doubt the rate of medical malpractice and attendant death is very high. Doctors are a essentially privilaged class in our society. But, people make a free choice (of some type) to engage a physician. Having a stray round fired into your house is not a free choice. Because it's Compton?...the assumption then is that it's perfectly OK to have appalling weapon control, simply because it's Compton? But it's not permissible in white picket fence neighborhoods? No doubt the people in Compton will be comforted by that surety. Bad One, no contention with your sequence of events. If the firing is justified, and some manner of control is exerted over the weapon when it's used...that's one of the things a professional should be trained to handle, even when under the appalling stress inherent to a situation like the one which started the thread. Stress response, and all the weird things which can happen under that condition, is not a rationale for endangering an entire neighborhood. Or shooting one of your compatriots. No doubt some posting on this forum might have handled the incident much more effectively. The gentry in the video, did not, and as a result, there may be hell to pay in Compton. And it's very interesting that so few have posted as to the means to negate what could happen in the community as a result of this incident. And this thread is getting too weird...so I'm out.

May 13, 2005, 09:34 PM	#97
BatmanX Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 266	faraway: Thank god you are done. Cause you don't read posts, you read what you WANT to read and then put nonsense to them. sheesh. Try reading people's posts over - out loud might help you. It appears you are the only one that doesn't understand. I take it you don't understand what Compton is. A little FYI - it isn't a nice neighborhood. It is probably one of the WORST hoods you will never go to. Poor, high crime, etc. Are you telling me that the cops in a white picket community handle things the same as a ghetto? Dude, you have no clue. __________________ NRA Life Member Current shopping list: Bersa Thunder 9mm CZ SP01 Current Ownage: CZ-P01 Bersa .380 (Duo tone) Kel Tec P3AT (SG) Stoeger 2000 (black syn.) 26" Winchester Model 97 12 gauge FULL Marlin Firearms Model 60 22LR

May 13, 2005, 11:27 PM	#99
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Batman...I've lived in places equal to or worse than Compton. How the hell would you know... And I do read these posts...and have come to the conclusion that the Firing Line is little more than a collection of people who either want to find a reason to shoot something, or find excuse those who do kill without cause. And that is nonsense. Maybe when some of you actually do have to kill, it won't seem so damn appealling. So I'm delisting.

May 14, 2005, 09:28 AM	#100
claude783 Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2004 Location: people's republic of California Posts: 386	Here on the local radio talk show, it was mentioned that the Police dispatcher told the officers that the suspect was armed, dangerous and being sought for murder. It was also mentioned on the talk show that the guy in the suv had his radio on and didn't know he was being followed until the officer pulled in front of him...probably began shooting at that point and the guy tried getting the hell out of there not realizing that he was "blocked" in. At that point spent the next few minutes "crapping" his pants as he tried to curl into a ball under the dash board! Don't know how true the KFI 640 talk show progarm was! They did release the radio communication informing the officers of this man being wanted, armed, and dangerous!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search