Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    152
    Thanks for sharing, damn spooky business indeed. Looked to be hit with a good burst on the first volley, went down and back up. Should be mandatory viewing for some that think that handgun rounds are lightning bolts.
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    “Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.” Jeff Cooper

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,874
    I wonder if that guy still thinks he could have helped him out????
    Nothing says Fuck You like a shotgun.....

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southeast United States
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanNobody View Post
    I don't know if this is of any help, but I think the guardian might have been caught up in the liability loop we're indoctrinating the young officers with. I see if often on the street when the guys are worried about internal complaints, external complaints, public opinion, and adherence to policy and procedures, some of which are only guidelines. For those who may find themselves in similar circumstances perhaps these words may give some guidance:

    1. As a law enforcement officer you're called to the scene by a complainant or on-view the issue. Your legal standing is without question and solidified in statute. You have no duty to retreat, and in fact have a duty to solve the tactical problem as fast as possible based on timing, proximity and potential for collateral damage to the public.
    2. Yes, de-escalation is part of the modern officer's mindset, but exigency is the offset and it is fine to consider de-escalation and dismiss it for a variety of reasons... such as timing, proximity and potential for collateral damage to the public.
    3. We don't let our suspects, especially armed ones who can cause injury or death to collaterals, go mobile. Going from static to mobile increases negative outcomes and increases liability from potential collateral damage.

    I completely see why a guardian, trained in modern policing, would take actions similar to the one in the video; however, experience and the viewpoint of a commander makes me want that guardian to keep the threat static and end it as fast as possible to prevent the issues we've discussed.

    De-escalation does need to be considered by modern law enforcement officers, but I would respectfully suggest it can be considered and dismissed based on timing, proximity and potential for collateral damage to the public. We have no duty to give ground and in fact, by doing so, we may prolong the hostilities. Sometimes decisiveness of action and speed are in fact themselves the most responsible move.

    For what it's worth.
    JonathanNobody's ability to articulate his analysis and conclusion is a thing of beauty; it's almost as much fun -- and educational -- as watching a well-trained warrior perform a shooting drill, then switch over to a knife for the coup de grace.

    If only we had more leaders of such stuff.
    Redneck Zen
    "Be careful what you get good at."

  4. #14
    Great dialog and all points well made. I'm not LEO, let me start with that. So, don't back up, I get it, makes sense. (Backing up all the way into 2 lane road?! Geez!)

    So, you give him the first order to drop the knife, square up and don't give ground. He stops advancing since you don't retreat. What now? I'm assuming someone gets Tased?

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by 45Smashemflat View Post
    Great dialog and all points well made. I'm not LEO, let me start with that. So, don't back up, I get it, makes sense. (Backing up all the way into 2 lane road?! Geez!)

    So, you give him the first order to drop the knife, square up and don't give ground. He stops advancing since you don't retreat. What now? I'm assuming someone gets Tased?
    .45,

    Do a keyword search for “preclusion” and you’ll see many older posts as we led up to KWTL. I think you’ll find the person who masters the preclusionary issues related to duty, society and family - AND WHO CAN ARTICULATE IT - has a tremendous amount of latitude and I think you’ll also find warnings may be considered a procedural issue and not directly relate to justification.

    Preclusion and articulation is power.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,363
    Quote Originally Posted by 45Smashemflat View Post
    So, you give him the first order to drop the knife, square up and don't give ground. He stops advancing since you don't retreat. What now? I'm assuming someone gets Tased?
    It depends.

    A deputy I know well was faced with a similar, but not identical situation, in which a reportedly knife-armed drunken DVP suspect continued to advance on him despite repeated warnings. No knife was visible but the deputy, alone and awaiting for backup, was not inclined to allow the suspect to roam. He drew his sidearm and then, noting the suspect's level of impairment, drew the taser with the offhand. He decided a small roadside ditch was the deadline beyond which he would not allow the suspect to pass. The suspect staggered up to that line, still ignoring commands, but stopped, and the deputy asked him, "Where's the knife?" As the suspect reached into his pocket the deputy immediately tased him and, moving offline to flank, saw the suspect drop like a sack of spuds. He was able to close safely, holster his tools and cuff the suspect.

    So, it depends. Incidentally, no knife found on the suspect and, shockingly, no accidental "sympathetic" discharge of the sidearm occurred. Range was 12-15 feet.
    Last edited by Papa; 11-29-2019 at 01:00 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

    "What cannot be remedied must be endured."

    358. And a wakeup.

  7. #17
    Thanks for the detailed replies from both of you. That makes perfect sense. I tend to think that LEO must progress through LTL options, or be able to articulate (there it is again...) why they were not applicable in this situation. As a mere civilian, my only options are withdraw or engage with lethal force. I can tell you I would not turn my back on that guy, nor would he be allowed to get within my "safe space" without engaging, nor am I backing up into traffic. If he "froze up" 40-50' out, I guess we would have a Mexican stand off until he felt froggy, or something else changed the scenario.

Posting Permissions

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