Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Not sure if the Flowchart justifies it, but to be better defined, I plan to add the Preclusion Balloon before the Justified in the focus of the thraet thread
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    At the point that the suspect began moving toward the officers, they were the focus of the violence...BUT...its not the same for them as for you. Here is why. It was not one lone officer (or CCW guy), there were a number of officers present. Moreover, once the less than lethal was in play, Tasers and Bean bag guns, preclusion is gone until those assets have been expended unsuccessfully. Then we have a situation where the officers cannot allow the man to leave, nor can they allow him to injure them. They attempted less lethal options but they failed, leaving no other option but to shoot.

    Lacking the additional officers and lacking less lethal options, it is a justified shoot immediately.
    And there it is. In a nutshell.

    Anyone remember the "force continuum," how we were expected to carry a bunch of less-lethal force options and work our way up through them before going to tertiary strikes, or to the gun? Remember how we quickly found out that mutual escalation rarely happened and that it was okay to skip a step or two or all of them if things went south quickly? No one is suggesting a return to a rigid force progression, but if time and opportunity allow you to safely deploy less lethal options, why not use them?
    Last edited by Papa; 07-26-2019 at 09:06 PM.
    Warrior for the working day.

    Es una cosa muy seria. --Robert Capa

    "...I ride the range in a Ford V8...Yippy Yi Yo Ki Yay." --Johnny Mercer

    "Can I move?...I'm better when I move."

    1, 2, 11. And a wakeup.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,426
    One of the emerging issues in LE is that there's a difference between purely crazy people and criminals. Therefore, LE has to be able to show a difference in treatment. Consider Graham and the three prongs: the severity of the crime in question, whether the individual poses an immediate threat to LE or others, and whether the individual is trying to escape or is resisting arrest. For the loons out there, you immediately lose on two counts; there is no crime and no arrest to resist. (Don't try and come up with pedantic crimes like disorderly conduct or blocking a street: the judge will scold you.) There's a related principle in that the state is not allowed to create it's own exigency and respond to it. Here, but for the officers' approach, there would have been no attack. Notice that all the non-cops in the area were utterly unmolested.

    The law isn't fully formed in the area, but it's progressing in leaps and bounds, mostly through case law. Undoubtedly, whatever I say today will be obsolete in a few years.

    As to the flow chart, it's inapplicable. It's there for violent criminal attacks and not for the psychiatric or medical emergency. This called for distance, time and talk. Maybe even walk away. (I've done that, leaving crazy dude or screaming drunk to his own devices, away from the public.)
    __________

    "To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    127
    Having some training in the LEO force continuum, I have to agree that the situation as presented is much different then the lone CCW or Police officer with a suspect directly confronting them with a bat. In this instance the threat is contained and there are multiple officers with less than lethal able to deploy. In the interview management class we talk about the disparity of force for example, the lone woman or older man surround by a group of men or a much larger man. Is there a disparity of force and the threat of bodily harm...Yes...Lethal force. But the converse can be said, you have a number of officers with non-lethal force available against one bat wielding loon...lethal force..not so much.
    Don M.
    Scottsdale, AZ

    "Man's flight through life is sustained by the power of his knowledge"

    Austin 'Dusty' Miller, the quote on the Eagle & Fledgling statue at the U.S. Air Force Academy

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
    As to the flow chart, it's inapplicable. It's there for violent criminal attacks and not for the psychiatric or medical emergency. This called for distance, time and talk. Maybe even walk away. (I've done that, leaving crazy dude or screaming drunk to his own devices, away from the public.)
    Yeah, and it feels wrong to leave without "solving" the problem.
    Warrior for the working day.

    Es una cosa muy seria. --Robert Capa

    "...I ride the range in a Ford V8...Yippy Yi Yo Ki Yay." --Johnny Mercer

    "Can I move?...I'm better when I move."

    1, 2, 11. And a wakeup.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa View Post
    Yeah, and it feels wrong to leave without "solving" the problem.
    Yup. Not the way we were raised. But my employer expects me to understand when the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and I just can't leave one of my guys to carry the weight of the world on something like that.
    __________

    "To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
    One of the emerging issues in LE is that there's a difference between purely crazy people and criminals. Therefore, LE has to be able to show a difference in treatment. Consider Graham and the three prongs: the severity of the crime in question, whether the individual poses an immediate threat to LE or others, and whether the individual is trying to escape or is resisting arrest. For the loons out there, you immediately lose on two counts; there is no crime and no arrest to resist. (Don't try and come up with pedantic crimes like disorderly conduct or blocking a street: the judge will scold you.) There's a related principle in that the state is not allowed to create it's own exigency and respond to it. Here, but for the officers' approach, there would have been no attack. Notice that all the non-cops in the area were utterly unmolested.

    The law isn't fully formed in the area, but it's progressing in leaps and bounds, mostly through case law. Undoubtedly, whatever I say today will be obsolete in a few years.

    As to the flow chart, it's inapplicable. It's there for violent criminal attacks and not for the psychiatric or medical emergency. This called for distance, time and talk. Maybe even walk away. (I've done that, leaving crazy dude or screaming drunk to his own devices, away from the public.)
    That is a POV I hadn't considered. We tend to view everything through a certain lens, and you are correct...this requires a different lens. This was not really an attack of violence in the sense that we think of. Was the man potentially violent and deadly? Yes...but until the officers pressed the issue, he was not actually attacking anyone or actually threatening anyone.

    A crazy guy swinging a sword on a street corner by himself is not a threat and not really "shootable" by LE or you and me. If that same crazy is making overt attempts to close the gap and swing the sword INTO you, then it is a different matter altogether.

    You expressed that better than I did.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa View Post
    And there it is. In a nutshell.

    Anyone remember the "force continuum," how we were expected to carry a bunch of less-lethal force options and work our way up through them before going to tertiary strikes, or to the gun? Remember how we quickly found out that mutual escalation rarely happened and that it was okay to skip a step or two or all of them if things went south quickly? No one is suggesting a return to a rigid force progression, but if time and opportunity allow you to safely deploy less lethal options, why not use them?
    Incidentally Papa, you do not seem the sort of focus on shuffleboard and day drinking once you are classified as Ronin. Should you be interested in teaching the Killing Within The Law material in your area of the nation once you are on your own, let me know.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Western WA
    Posts
    5,453
    Yes, the non-lethal is a very different perspective.

    I tend not to think about it that much because it’s not my responsibility to handle these things. My thought is that if it looks like a situation I could easily handle with my hands, then I would jump in if it looks reasonable. And if not, then I just wouldn’t (though I might hang around if it looked like people were at risk).

    Since I carry a gun, any hand to hand shenanigans could turn lethal so I am reluctant to engage is things that aren’t obviously a true, lethal threat to me or others. My default for that stuff is to stay out of the way, get my family/friends out of harms way, and call the cops.

    Sometimes people just need a good thumping, and while I would be willing to do that in theory, I just don’t have the time or inclination to deal with legal trouble for something that’s not really serious.
    Brent Yamamoto
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor

    Ready, willing, able. Bring it.

    Instagram: karate_at_1200fps

    Upcoming classes:

    Advanced Close Range Gunfighting - Nov 2-3 Mapleton, OR

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    THIRD COAST
    Posts
    4,483
    This incident started as a Domestic Disturbance, but upon arrival became what we call a Peace Officer's Committal. Texas has been very active in training for Critical Incidents/Consumers. In my AO this guy would've demonstrated he was a danger to himself or others and we wouldn't have the option of just walking away. Already mentioned, this guy had no projectile weapons and was menacing with a bat or bats. Less lethal is the tool of the day if all other communications fail. Going in hot with a handgun and a Taser is and was a recipe for disaster. Keep a loose perimeter until those who make the big bucks decide how to get this guy in custody and to a doctor. Forcing the consumer's hand here is no different than an officer placing himself in the path of a vehicle and then claiming self-defense. Reading through the incident, the shooting was avoidable when it occurred. I see problems in this officer's future.
    Jon Payne
    Ambassador, Suarez Group of Companies
    Suarez International Law Enforcement Instructor

    The Two Most Dangerous Places in Today's World:
    1.) A Gun Free Zone
    2.) Your Comfort Zone

    Train with Payne 2019

    AK RIFLE GUNFIGHTING - OCT 26-27, 2019 HOUSTON, TX

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •