• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Police Brutality?

1. You obviously know nothing about policework.
2. There's already a thread for this.
3. There's something called the Use of Force Continuum. Look it up.
4. Since I've been trained through the police department (I was going to be a police officer but switched mid school) the police had every right to use lethal force.

EDIT: Perhaps I should further explain. A police officer's most important job is to come home when their shift is over. Safety for themselves and fellow officer's comes before some punk ass kid who wants to wield a weapon. Being a hero is not in their job description.

Imagine you're a police officer, you come to a call about a teen with a weapon. Before you even arrive the information starts rolling in, that he'd assaulted another student, meaning he'd already proven violent, that he'd commanded teachers and other students to the ground, that he wanted control... this was a classic school gunman scene. When you get there you see the teen holding a gun. You begin calling commands for the teen to drop the weapon, they don't comply, instead the brandish it around, threatening your life and the lives of those around you. So you shoot, and you want to make sure they don't get up to make you regret shooting.

And that 'shot to the back of the head', that was the last shot, and the kid must have been already falling and turned their head.

Police officers are not trained to 'shoot in the leg'. Have you ever been shot in the leg? Yep it'll stop you from running, of course there are those who would keep going anyways, but it makes you desperate. You'll do anything not to get caught, when you get shot in the leg and have no where to run, that's when you pull out that weapon you've been hiding for just this occasion.

If that gun had been real that officer had been a hero, since it wasn't now people will call him a bad guy. But the scenario never changed, that gun looks real, and has no markings.
 
I think a reboot of this thread is a fine idea.

Phantom: In this case, I think the officer made the best call he could have, considering the information he had available to him. That being said, are you also claiming that anything an officer can do that makes him safer is justified? (I'm not saying you are definitely claiming this; I'm saying I can't tell. Please clarify? Also, if you are: I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on the link I've placed later on in the post)

My other concern is that: the Use of Force continuum provides a pattern of escalation for officers to follow, but to my knowledge it has no guidelines for what the citizen's actions or level of threat ought to be before the officer should escalate to the next level of force. As such I'm not entirely sure what the point of is; perhaps you could explain this too?

In any case: a reboot of this thread is a fine idea!

Everyone: So I read this account (tw: police brutality) of an arrest that, according to a legally-informed commenter, did not involve any lawbreaking by the police. Do you think that the officer's actions were excessive, were they right? Why?
 
Last edited:
ARG A FUCKING 500 ERROR ATE MY POST AND IT WAS HUUUGE

Nyuu said:
Phantom: In this case, I think the officer made the best call he could have, considering the information he had available to him. That being said, are you also claiming that anything an officer can do that makes him safer is justified? (I'm not saying you are definitely claiming this; I'm saying I can't tell. Please clarify? Also, if you are: I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on the link I've placed later on in the post)
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's a hazy line. In training the number one rule they teach is that your job isn't to be a hero, it's to come home to your family after each shift alive. A good friend of mine told me, "Never be a hero unless you have a death wish. Even if you're not a hero, you're worth more dead than alive." And I think it's true. Yes we all want to think that any officer will jump into the line of fire to save a box of kittens, but in truth, that's not how they're trained, it's the calibur of the officer.

Researching an individual twenty times for the side of safety? Yes, do it, last thing you need is to send him to the jail and the CO get's stabbed cause you missed something. Erring on the side of safety is a good thing.

About your link, I'd like to see the arresting officer's side. Wanna bet it's a different story?

Nyuu said:
My other concern is that: the Use of Force continuum provides a pattern of escalation for officers to follow, but to my knowledge it has no guidelines for what the citizen's actions or level of threat ought to be before the officer should escalate to the next level of force. As such I'm not entirely sure what the point of is; perhaps you could explain this too?
Click to expand...

It's to show that the officer had multiple tools available, but with lack of compliance the only choice they had was to fire.

The 'guidelines for citizen's actions' or 'level of threat' is all a matter of common sense and training.

This is the opposite of the Use of Force Continuum;

1. No Resistance (Compliant); The subject does not resist. The only force used by the officer is presence and verbal commands; no physical coercion is required. *This is an officer's main goal.

2. Passive Resistance; The subject fails to follow commands and may be verbally assaultive. The officer response may include firm grip, control holds, and pressure points to gain compliance.​

3. Defensive Resistance In determining whether the subject is passively or defensively resisting, the officer must consider the totality of circumstances when choosing the force option necessary to control the situation and safely gain compliance. The officer can respond with soft empty hand techniques, take downs, pain compliance techniques, impact, chemical, or electronic weapons.​



4. Preparatory Resistance; The subject may show signs that he or she is preparing to advance greater resistance or attack through behavioral signs (verbal, non-verbal, and/or physical). The officer must be prepared to adjust tactically for the attack.​



5. Aggressive Resistance/Active Aggression; The subject takes offensive action by attempting to strike, push, tackle, or physically harm the officer or another person. If the officer perceives a threat by the subject appropriate force to stop the attack to defend him or herself.​

6. Deadly Resistance; The subject attempts to seriously injure or take the life of the officer or another person. The officer may use up to and including deadly force to stop the threatening behavior.​
Click to expand...


That's all, though this, might help;​


This is helpful in understanding what an officer can and can't do when it comes to force.​

Force results in equal force.​



And about the OP's 'shoot them in the leg' thing. Stupidest thing to do. Ever.​
 
Last edited:
Your obese post is perfectly fine.

If a legshot doesn't work, what about a shot to the arm? You'd think that that would be enough to disable the subject without killing them. Or is it just too difficult a shot?
 
Center of mass, you're trained to shoot for the center of mass.



Imagine you're a drug dealer being pursued by a cop. You reach a fence, and it's too high to jump over. You turn and are now facing the cop. You feel your gun in you inside jacket pocket, and you're already thinking of pulling it out. The cop sees you and starts barking orders, "Hands out of your pockets now!" he says, his gun pointed at you. You're scared, too scared so you don't move, "Last warning! Hands out of your pockets now!" You know you can't get caught, you lose you're goods and the rest of the gang will kill you before you even have a chance to get out of jail.

Still to scared you're left frozen in fear. Then you hear the gunshot, and the pain in your left leg, you fall to the ground, tears from the pain swelling in your eyes. You're done. You've been shot in the thigh, above the knee. You hear the heavy footfalls of the cop's boots getting closer, and you hear his voice rambling codes into his radio. You know you have two choices, get caught and spend years in jail, or kill the cop and have a chance at freedom. You feel the blood and now you know you're done, you only have one option.

As you hear the cop getting closer you roll on your stomach, making much more noise than needed, while on your stomach you reach for your own gun, the cop is right there, as quick as your wounded leg can move you turn over, gun in hand, and shoot the cop.

Your shot hits, and gets him in the armpit, where his vest can't protect him.



A cornered desperate man is more dangerous than anything, and this is one of the scenarios that we teach for Street Decisions. This actually was a scenario we ran as a training for new explorers. This is one of the actual results from the scenario in which the explorer was 'killed'. He thought the shot to the leg thing was a good idea, it wasn't.

One of the many reasons the ol' "shoot 'em in the leg' or other extremity is a stupid ass idea.

As for three shots, like I said, officer's choice, three shots isn't excessive. An entire magazine? That's excessive. One to the back of the head (as said in report) the individual must have turned or started falling after a previous round.

And the 'shot in the leg" thing. Center. Of. Mass. Weapon defense 101. You shoot for the center of mass, aim for the chest and abdomen.

A shot to the leg doesn't knock you out. And if you're a criminal or are scared of being arrested it makes an already desperate person even more desperate. Their common sense goes out the toilet. If I hear the shoot them in the legs thing I will start a rant that will go on for three pages on why not to do that. Very stupid.

My source for this. I was a police explorer for five years, three with the city police, two with the county. Was a Sergeant with the city and an lt with the county. I specialized in Training, Domestics, Search Warrants (Blue collar as well), Hostage Negotiation, First Aid, and Street Decisions. Won quite a few awards from our state as well as regional competitions. I switched careers and now am training to be a paramedic. Hopefully. (stupid school being expensive)
 
Last edited:
So in that case, if the explorer had acted in accordance with the "centre of mass" rule or whatnot, the dealer would be dead. Would this be a violation of:

"Deadly force may NOT be used against a fleeing felon when the felony is not a violent felony."

And also (@OP's link), three shots? One aimed for the head? Isn't that a bit much? But yeah, in this case, it was pretty much necessary to use some kind of ranged & incapacitating force.
 
bulbasaur said:
So in that case, if the explorer had acted in accordance with the "centre of mass" rule or whatnot, the dealer would be dead. Would this be a violation of:

"Deadly force may NOT be used against a fleeing felon when the felony is not a violent felony."

And also (@OP's link), three shots? One aimed for the head? Isn't that a bit much? But yeah, in this case, it was pretty much necessary to use some kind of ranged & incapacitating force.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the explorer wasn't at fault, end of story if he'd not have done that, he wouldn't have been 'dead' come the end of the scenario. Had he still killed the perp it would have been illegal still. But it was exemplifying the use of 'if I shoot him in the leg I don't have to kill him but can still catch him'. He was a new guy, like in his first week.

Ballistics. That final shot, to the back of the head, wasn't intentional by the cop, the cop wasn't behind him he was in front, otherwise he wouldn't (note this is speculation) have shot. Two shots, both on target, then the individual begins to fall, while falling is spinning upon impact (natural response, to move away from the danger), thus the bullet intended for the upper chest, hit the back of the head.

Three bullets isn't excessive. I've seen explorers in the spur of the moment fire about nine before they realize only two or three took the individual down. Three to five rounds is average that I've seen, it's called 'grouping'.

By the way a bullet to the leg can still kill you, if it hits the correct spot, you'll bleed out pretty quickly.
 
Since we're entertaining speculation: would you mind talking about whether the story as it was told portrayed correct application of force, rather than dismissing it as "About your link, I'd like to see the arresting officer's side. Wanna bet it's a different story?"?
 
Last edited:
Nyuu said:
Since we're entertaining speculation: would you mind opining on whether the story as it was told portrayed correct application of force, rather than dismissing it as "About your link, I'd like to see the arresting officer's side. Wanna bet it's a different story?"?
Click to expand...

Ok, now from what I get the officer was an ass, but remember he's one, why blame many for the acts of few... But here are some things I noticed.

1. He never gave proper identification that he was, indeed a student... no student ID or anything.
2. Security has every damn right to tell you you can't record something on their property. As a guard I know this.
3. The 'recording'. The police would already have been pissed solely becasue this is happening. It's actually illegal in some places to record any police action as that tape is considered evidence in some cases.

I actually have to leave right now, but I'll update later.
 
You haven't seen police abuse until you've seen... the bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKrYAidONdI

It has English subtitles but if you can understand Portuguese the scene is much more exciting to watch. :P I'm sadistic, I know.

That being said, police should use non-lethal force whenever possible. Note that I mean "possible", not always. If the guy is going to detonate a bomb or something like that and killing him is the only way to end the threat, tough luck to him. Unfortunately some cops have a rather sensitive concept of "whenever possible" and always shoot to kill, but then it's up to the victims (and the eventual prosecution side) to prove that his killing intent was misguided.

I wouldn't call the OP's news police brutality, however. It has another name. Brutality is what's in the video I posted...
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, what about tear gas? In an in-closed area, would it have worked?
 
Hmm, let's use tear gas while we're in the same room.

In a building, like a school, tear gas would have entered the ventilation and affected everyone in the building, and there are some agents in tear gas that are toxic. I learned that when I got sprayed.

My security company uses something called Freeze+p and it's a mix of OC and CS. Nasty shit.
 
Wouldn't a tazer or pepper ball/rubber bullet/other non-lethal gun have been better than shooting to kill?
 
Yes, but in the OP's link's case those might not have been available to the officer at the time. Anything is better than killing someone.
 
Sorry to double post, but I think I need to explain myself more because I've gotten some questions as to why I don't think three shots is excessive.

As a citizen, yes it seems excessive, but to a person with law enforcement training it makes sense. At least try to put it in the right mindset. Police are taught "Double tap - reassess - double tap - reassess - double tap until the threat is cancelled."

This means one double tapped and was reassessing and the other fired only one shot at the same time and assessed and determined the threat to be cancelled. I think this actually shows restraint given the extrememe situation of a school shooter. Like I said before, a cop just wants to go home. They will shoot until the threat is cancelled. Remember they are just people and are scared for their lives. At least try to put yourself in the officer's boots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom