Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:


Given the circumstances, that's ultimately a good thing for the women in the truck... but, seriously, were these police officers given any weapons training?

Whoa! Hang on there Insaniaky! Given the incompetence shown by these officers, do we really want them to have better aim?!

There's a much more sensible solution to this; replace police with stormtroopers.


1. They have a stick just to deal with bats like this
2. They have poor accuracy to the point that if they did miss their target they wouldn't accidentally hit the neighbour
3. They're expendable and they can just make more
4. They're clones just made for this job, they don't even need to pay them and they'd have better training because of this.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

That dovetails nicely into the recently announced decision not to charge any of the police who unloaded over a hundred rounds into a pickup truck containing 2 innocent women without any warning. Kind of amazing on several levels.

Jesus... I mean, seriously what.the.feth?

I think perhaps the scariest part of that story is that there are a bunch of cops running around with guns who shot a pickup truck more than a hundred times and only managed to hit the occupants three times.

Given the circumstances, that's ultimately a good thing for the women in the truck... but, seriously, were these police officers given any weapons training?

They're given weapons training. The issue is that unlike civilians who opt for recreational shooting, police end up with a pretty packed schedule with little time to go and practice.


In any regards, you can find lots of stories about things like this instance. There's quotes from LEOs about having firefights inside of houses with rather large amounts of fire being exchanged where even though they or the suspect are standing in the middle of a hallway nobody gets hit.

Most law enforcement training for active shooter situations(which is what the Dorner thing was) tends to be very much in the vein of "suppressing fire"--put lots of rounds downrange to make the other guy seek cover while someone else moves around him.

To put it politely(and with a funny youtube clip to boot!), this is kind of the best way to think about LEO training when it comes to weapons training in active shooter situations. Spoiler'd because it's not safe for work.

I'm rarely on the side of the police in these situations, but the bat justifies deadly force.

It doesn't justify such a frivolous lawsuit, however. If the cop is so distraught over a justified shooting then he's a danger to the public and other cops, and needs to find a new job.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Has the family of the neighbour shot because of this been compensated? Seems like they have the biggest grievance here.

I was wondering that myself.

It is getting to the point where police arguably should not be called for domestic issues. My advice in some cities would be if you have someone with mental health issues and they are going through a violent but probably short episode and you don't want to take the chance of them being killed during the episode, do NOT call the police. American police are not well trained to do anything outside of pseudo battlefield operations and certainly lack the capacity to de-escalate a situation with a person with mental health issues.

Basically if you live in some cities or maybe the US in general, calling the police to your house or your neighbor's house should be a last choice you make out of many. Unless of course you have a situation that directly calls for someone needing to be shot or killed and you have taken appropriate cover.

Family member drunk and disorderly? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve issue.

Family member with mental or learning issues going through an episode? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve problem.

Home invader? Probably best to take care of it yourself, police might shoot your dog, cat, children, neighbors, you, all while going rambo.

Given the circumstances, that's ultimately a good thing for the women in the truck... but, seriously, were these police officers given any weapons training?

They're given weapons training. The issue is that unlike civilians who opt for recreational shooting, police end up with a pretty packed schedule with little time to go and practice.
/quote]

Interestingly, half my squad at a carbine match a few weeks back was a portion of the Travis County Sheriffs marksmanship team.
In ancient times when I lived in LA, police marksmanship was pretty good. Further, the vehicle was hit a lot (I guess the moral of the story was...if you're worried about ambushes by a Toyota pickup).

its not their marksmanship, its the utter lack of repurcussions, the LA case cited being a gloriously horrific example.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
It is getting to the point where police arguably should not be called for domestic issues. My advice in some cities would be if you have someone with mental health issues and they are going through a violent but probably short episode and you don't want to take the chance of them being killed during the episode, do NOT call the police. American police are not well trained to do anything outside of pseudo battlefield operations and certainly lack the capacity to de-escalate a situation with a person with mental health issues.

Basically if you live in some cities or maybe the US in general, calling the police to your house or your neighbor's house should be a last choice you make out of many. Unless of course you have a situation that directly calls for someone needing to be shot or killed and you have taken appropriate cover.

Family member drunk and disorderly? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve issue.

Family member with mental or learning issues going through an episode? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve problem.

Home invader? Probably best to take care of it yourself, police might shoot your dog, cat, children, neighbors, you, all while going rambo.

This is wise. Frankly what do you expect the police to do? They are not social services, and domestics are horrible to begin with.

 Frazzled wrote:

Given the circumstances, that's ultimately a good thing for the women in the truck... but, seriously, were these police officers given any weapons training?

They're given weapons training. The issue is that unlike civilians who opt for recreational shooting, police end up with a pretty packed schedule with little time to go and practice.

Interestingly, half my squad at a carbine match a few weeks back was a portion of the Travis County Sheriffs marksmanship team.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
It is getting to the point where police arguably should not be called for domestic issues. My advice in some cities would be if you have someone with mental health issues and they are going through a violent but probably short episode and you don't want to take the chance of them being killed during the episode, do NOT call the police. American police are not well trained to do anything outside of pseudo battlefield operations and certainly lack the capacity to de-escalate a situation with a person with mental health issues.

Basically if you live in some cities or maybe the US in general, calling the police to your house or your neighbor's house should be a last choice you make out of many. Unless of course you have a situation that directly calls for someone needing to be shot or killed and you have taken appropriate cover.

Family member drunk and disorderly? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve issue.

Family member with mental or learning issues going through an episode? Take care of it in house, police may or may not shoot to kill to solve problem.

Home invader? Probably best to take care of it yourself, police might shoot your dog, cat, children, neighbors, you, all while going rambo.

This is wise. Frankly what do you expect the police to do? They are not social services, and domestics are horrible to begin with.

Honestly? I don't expect much if anything from police outside of being poorly trained National Guard wannabes. Military Police don't go from 0 to lethal because they are not perpetually scared of their suroundings and have adequate training to de-escalate a situation. Hell, I'd rather call up an 11B to a domestic issue, at least they are more likely to butt stroke a belligerent to compliance then shoot because they feared for their life.

My Grandfather was Detroit police for 30 years and I keep and maintain each of his service pistols because I will always respect what he did. However, he knew that his police and now police are a whole different ballgame. He even despite all of his strong right-wing leanings felt the police were not police anymore but some sort of military force.

Interestingly, half my squad at a carbine match a few weeks back was a portion of the Travis County Sheriffs marksmanship team.

Not to sound as though I'm moving goalposts here, but Sheriff's Department seem to have much more spaced out schedules for their officers and more stringent requirements/training to begin with.

Not disagreeing. It was just an interesting note your statement reminded me of. Most police trainers will tell you most police will not shoot much unless they have to. Contrary to Hollywood, they aren’t getting off on being gun guys. Its just another tool on their belt (and a heavy belt too…)

In ancient times when I lived in LA, police marksmanship was pretty good. Further, the vehicle was hit a lot (I guess the moral of the story was...if you're worried about ambushes by a Toyota pickup).

its not their marksmanship, its the utter lack of repurcussions, the LA case cited being a gloriously horrific example.

In a situation like what happened in California, there's a lot more pressing matters at hand. Like why they opened fire on a truck with two women inside when they were looking for a single male suspect.

Exactly-we’re in complete agreement. The only similarity is that they were both driving trucks. Of course they should shoot up the truck they saw. Its not like there are 1,000,000 small trucks in LA or anything. It has to be the suspect!

There's not an "utter lack" of consequences in the cases where it's necessary, but there is a lack of will for people on juries to convict police officers.

A jury can’t convict if the DA never brings it to trial. However I am surprised. LAPD were usually pretty good about not tolerating this sort of thing. Now if you pulled a gun or were engaged in a crime they’d shoot you fast, but they were usually pretty good about not just blasting away.

 Frazzled wrote:

This is wise. Frankly what do you expect the police to do? They are not social services, and domestics are horrible to begin with.

The way it is setup in Oklahoma, and probably most states, is that law enforcement is the first step to get anybody with mental illness into the system.

Anyone that is a threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, and who doesn't want to volunteer to go to treatment despite clearly needing it, has to go through law enforcement who will take your 'third-party statement' and transport the person who is at risk to a treatment facility (aka: the local ER) for evaluation. Unless you are willing to try to restrain and transport that person yourself, you will need law enforcement to do that for you.

So we end up with a crappy system where law enforcement is a required piece in the treatment system even though the vast majority of law enforcement officers don't have the training or experience to deal with mental illness. Oklahoma started Crisis Intervention Team training for officers, which has helped, but there is a long way to go.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

This is wise. Frankly what do you expect the police to do? They are not social services, and domestics are horrible to begin with.

The way it is setup in Oklahoma, and probably most states, is that law enforcement is the first step to get anybody with mental illness into the system.

Anyone that is a threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, and who doesn't want to volunteer to go to treatment despite clearly needing it, has to go through law enforcement who will take your 'third-party statement' and transport the person who is at risk to a treatment facility (aka: the local ER) for evaluation. Unless you are willing to try to restrain and transport that person yourself, you will need law enforcement to do that for you.

So we end up with a crappy system where law enforcement is a required piece in the treatment system even though the vast majority of law enforcement officers don't have the training or experience to deal with mental illness. Oklahoma started Crisis Intervention Team training for officers, which has helped, but there is a long way to go.

Indeed. This is bringing in people who are dealing with crimes and criminals -who's tool kit is based around arresting said parties despite any resistance- into a mental health system. It sounds-pun intended-insane.

It wasn't just another pick up though. It was two white women in a Tacoma. And they were looking for a large black male in a titan. I believe the only similarity is both trucks were blue. If they can't tell the difference between those 2 then they need they're eyes checked.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of being a policeman in the USA is the risk of having to shoot someone.

The proper phrasing should be "Part of being a law enforcement officer is the risk of having to kill someone". That isn't exclusive to the US. There have been instances in the UK and Europe where LEOs have killed someone using stuff that is billed as "nonlethal" because of heart conditions or other factors.

In this instance, it's not an unreasonable lawsuit. The officer might have been prepared for taking the life of someone to protect themselves; but because of the situation an innocent bystander was killed.

Aim better.

Or at least try and establish if the area is clear before letting rip.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, the medical history of an individual can mean that tasers could still be lethal. People with heart defects have been known to die from tasers.

But basic biology means that gunshots are almost always fatal. Especially 4 of them. In the back. I'd sure as hell rather get tazered than shot, any day of the week, heart condition or not.

Most departments stress that tasers are for specific situations, firearms are for everything else. Most nonlethal measures just aren't effective. That, sadly, means that firearms are still the go-to in a situation where the officer or bystanders could be harmed by the individual in question.

I don't doubt that it's protocol, but it's fething stupid. The police forces of the rest of the world could have dealt with that without shooting the guy. Do they not carry a baton?

Incidently, there's been some news coverage of US police forces visiting the UK to learn how to deal with mentally ill people without shooting them.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I do not really see a problem here.

Family trys to sue before kid hits the ground, cops get tired of people sueing cops before a week is up for money. Cop counteer sues for money.

Someone kills my kid I want them left in jail for life or death sentence..... So if he is let off you know the second one. Money doesnt get your kid back people need to stop trying to get millions off a death.

The article explained that - it was filed quickly to capture all evidence before it has the chance to go missing. Having a family member murdered by the police can hardly be equated to a lottery win. Plus, since Chicago PD has such a bad rep, there's no point waiting for them to be jailed as it'll probably never happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of being a policeman in the USA is the risk of having to shoot someone.

The proper phrasing should be "Part of being a law enforcement officer is the risk of having to kill someone". That isn't exclusive to the US. There have been instances in the UK and Europe where LEOs have killed someone using stuff that is billed as "nonlethal" because of heart conditions or other factors.

I can't remember the figures offhand (I'll look), but the US police have killed more people in the first 20-odd days of 2016 than the UK police have in the last 20-odd years.

Edit: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries
more people killed by police in the US in 26 days than in the UK in 26 years.

I can think of like, 3 fatal police shootings in the UK in the last decade. 1 was a mistaken suicide bomber on a train, one was a ganster waving a gun in the street, and one was a crazy guy who shot a police officer in the face with a shotgun, and then resulted in an hours long armed stand-off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm rarely on the side of the police in these situations, but the bat justifies deadly force.

Not in the rest of the world it isn't. Over here you'd need a sword (or axe) in order to get a firearms cop to come visit. The rest will just pop out their baton and smack the bat out of your hand (probably breaking your arm in the process) if they can't talk you down.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, the medical history of an individual can mean that tasers could still be lethal. People with heart defects have been known to die from tasers.

But basic biology means that gunshots are almost always fatal. Especially 4 of them. In the back. I'd sure as hell rather get tazered than shot, any day of the week, heart condition or not.

Without in any way impugning the point you were making, and while agreeing with you, I pedantically need to point out that on average, gunshot wounds are not fatal. As a matter of fact, they are statistically not usually fatal.

6 out of 7 people shot survive:



It really depends on shot placement (if you get hit in the head with nearly any caliber, you're probably going to die), and then, how many times you got shot (since you will bleed out faster). As an ER doctor says, if you get to an emergency room with a heartbeat, you'll almost certainly live.

Good point; I didn't mean to imply that gunshots are always/usually fatal. I'm assuming most gunshots are not in the core - i.e. arms/legs? Do you have figures on fatality results of people shot in the chest (from the back, in traditional Chicago PD style)?

Are there any figures on how fatal tazers are? I'm assuming far more than 6 out of 7 people tazed survive.

I just find it bizarre that people can justify firearms over tazers because tazers are somehow too dangerous.

Herzlos wrote:

Not in the rest of the world it isn't. Over here you'd need a sword (or axe) in order to get a firearms cop to come visit. The rest will just pop out their baton and smack the bat out of your hand (probably breaking your arm in the process) if they can't talk you down.

The Scottish constabulary has started to allow armed officers to respond to routine calls. This has not gone down very well.

Herzlos wrote:
Good point; I didn't mean to imply that gunshots are always/usually fatal. I'm assuming most gunshots are not in the core - i.e. arms/legs? Do you have figures on fatality results of people shot in the chest (from the back, in traditional Chicago PD style)?

Unless you are shot in the heart and you don't bleed to death (unlikely if you receive prompt emergency treatment) you will almost certainly survive at least for a while. Modern trauma care is extremely effective, around 98% of trauma cases survived in the hospital in Camp Bastion (and that included traumatic amputations to multiple limbs and other really complex injuries).

I believe that's just if the armed officer is nearest to the call at the time, and they respond in the guise of normal officer (so gun locked in car, no authority to use it) rather than firearms officer?

It seems to just be a pragmatic symptom of a grossly understaffed police force (in the good old days they'd have been enough beat officers for the firearm teams to go back to base).

I believe the bar for invoking firearms is still a lot higher than baseball bat, whether the officer is armed or not.

Herzlos wrote:
I believe that's just if the armed officer is nearest to the call at the time, and they respond in the guise of normal officer (so gun locked in car, no authority to use it) rather than firearms officer?

Yes although they will be carrying their firearm so there have been cases of people who have committed minor traffic offenses and similar trivial crimes being detained/questioned by an armed officer.

Maybe we should replace Tasers with this....





I wonder if Tasers "non-lethal" billing make it seem more acceptable to use one in the wielder's mind?

Tasers have their place when the offender is not armed, but not cooperating. They provide an option in a range of encounters.

Properly trained, a cop with a night stick can reliably gain the upper hand on anybody not armed with a firearm. They're a remarkable tool, but were wildly abused by brutal cops for years, so they're less likely to be used.

Herzlos wrote:
I believe the bar for invoking firearms is still a lot higher than baseball bat, whether the officer is armed or not.

Do you realize how easy it is to exercise lethal force and/or inflict grievous bodily injury with a baseball bat?

 Hordini wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I believe the bar for invoking firearms is still a lot higher than baseball bat, whether the officer is armed or not.

Do you realize how easy it is to exercise lethal force and/or inflict grievous bodily injury with a baseball bat?

Guess he's never seen The Untouchables.