Officer-involved shooting in Louisville

[Frank_N_Stein]

Are you guys done beating up on foszoe yet?

Is that a trick question?

 

[roscott]

More on topic, as far as batons go, I was under the impression that a baton properly deployed (usually to the knee) by a trained officer is actually considered a "non-lethal" instrument. As such it is intended to be used in less demanding situations, where the officer is not in danger.

So any of the "activists" wondering why the officer did not deploy a baton aren't really making a fair suggestion. The officer is trained to use the baton as a non lethal tool, whereas Mr. Flagpole is using his metal spear in a potentially lethal manner. If the officer needs to employ lethal force, he'll just go to his gun, not try to swordfight. (Although I'd be a big fan of officers carrying swords, because that would be awesome.)

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Is that a trick question?

Probably,

He ran his mouth, you guys smacked him for it, just wondering if it was over or still going on.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Probably,

He ran his mouth, you guys smacked him for it, just wondering if it was over or still going on.

I'm going to bed, so I'm done.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Meh..... the only thing I want to know, is if the officer really shot him with a revolver like the article says?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Meh..... the only thing I want to know, is if the officer really shot him with a revolver like the article says?

Call me old fashioned, but I like my revolvers to look more revolverish.

 

[Denny347]

More on topic, as far as batons go, I was under the impression that a baton properly deployed (usually to the knee) by a trained officer is actually considered a "non-lethal" instrument. As such it is intended to be used in less demanding situations, where the officer is not in danger.

So any of the "activists" wondering why the officer did not deploy a baton aren't really making a fair suggestion. The officer is trained to use the baton as a non lethal tool, whereas Mr. Flagpole is using his metal spear in a potentially lethal manner. If the officer needs to employ lethal force, he'll just go to his gun, not try to swordfight. (Although I'd be a big fan of officers carrying swords, because that would be awesome.)

Batons are less lethal but the CAN be lethal or SBI depending on where the strikes are. However, it certainly shouldn't be a "go-to" option in this scenario. Your observation is correct.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Probably,

He ran his mouth, you guys smacked him for it, just wondering if it was over or still going on.

I'd still like to know what his "training" consisted of that he used as his creds for his alternate plan. Otherwise, my points have been made. Any further education will require tuition, I'm done giving my expertise for free.

Frank and yourself are so intent at reading what you want to read instead of what I have written that further conversation is pointless. Several times, I have said the officer was justified in very clear language. Yet you both resort to telling me what I clearly implied without considering what I clearly wrote.

Ah, nevermind, I'm not done. Have you considered your wrote without any regard for how it would clearly be perceived? Frank's pretty well covered it. It's the exact same as me going to a thread on an emergency landing of a passenger jet and saying "well, I'm trained in the flight of tethered hot air balloons, and I would have landed the plane like this...." and then said something completely wrong. It's being perceived as it is because I've claimed some level of expertise. It is incredibly tiresome to have years of experience, actual training, and then to make decisions in split seconds and then be picked apart by people who weren't there, who have zero expertise in the arena, etc. If you want to talk about how you as a civilian would react, great, but perhaps putting it in a thread about an LEO shooting is not the place to do it.

More on topic, as far as batons go, I was under the impression that a baton properly deployed (usually to the knee) by a trained officer is actually considered a "non-lethal" instrument.

Not to the knee. Joints aren't generally the preferred target. Fleshy areas with nerve bundles are.

 

[foszoe]

I will give them some more chances to beat up on me

I would like to shift the conversation from action to thought though, for perhaps that is an area where I can learn something. The reason for my actions, were a result of two things, my understanding of training I have received, and the scenario that ran through my head while the tape was rolling.

With that in mind, BBI, Frank and whomever, I will say this about my understanding of what I have been taught, and say this much about my level of training. I have taken 6 classes in the last 3 years from 5 different instructors, but only one was given by law enforcement. In each, there was a portion dedicated to conflict avoidance in general, and specificallly regarding the role of the civilian vs the role of the police, this was highlighted more in the class given by law enforcement. That doesn't mean at all costs of course, but there was an emphasis on letting the police do police work. I still maintain that any flaw in my thoughts/actions are my own. I am under no delusion that my training is superior to anyone elses or makes me some sort of Rambo. I was exposed to several of the topics, you mentioned BBI, but I do not claim expertness, but I am familiar.

With that said, I would like to ask you the following question. What did you "see" in the video and more importantly what you did not see or hear that played a roll in your assessment of the situation? IE how did you fill in the gaps? Because that played a big part in what I said I would do, I will answer that question for myself and would appreciate any input on what keys I missed or failed to mention.

The scenario that played out in my head was the following. Yes I made it my own because of how I took the question. Bolding what I think was key to my thinking.

I get out of my car, alone, after parking to do some shopping. I observe a man walking somewhat erratically, that would draw my attention. I see the man as drunk and would maintain some distance. He engages me in a conversation that I find to be confrontational, then he moves down the street and off camera.

Here is where my scenario really becomes my own since I have no real idea what the guy does off camera....

I see him as walking away belligerently, (I would not be ordering him to stop or other more law enforcement actions.) so I keep my distance behind him.

I see him while still walking away, movement away was key in my thinking, as grabbing for a flagpole in a manner that suggests he is going to use it as a weapon, it is at this moment that i would have begun to back pedal and draw ( I saw the officer and presumed he remained steadfast because he was giving an order) and it is this time frame of about 3 sec where I believe I could make it behind the cover of the car that would be a crucial difference between the difference in roles I see as a civilian (me) vs an officer.

If I varied the scenario even slightly and envisioned the flag pole grab as happening with momentum towards me after an aggressive turn, then I would have been pulling the trigger as soon as i was able and moved backwards only to create reaction time.

 

[foszoe]

Ah, nevermind, I'm not done. Have you considered your wrote without any regard for how it would clearly be perceived? Frank's pretty well covered it. It's the exact same as me going to a thread on an emergency landing of a passenger jet and saying "well, I'm trained in the flight of tethered hot air balloons, and I would have landed the plane like this...." and then said something completely wrong. It's being perceived as it is because I've claimed some level of expertise. It is incredibly tiresome to have years of experience, actual training, and then to make decisions in split seconds and then be picked apart by people who weren't there, who have zero expertise in the arena, etc. If you want to talk about how you as a civilian would react, great, but perhaps putting it in a thread about an LEO shooting is not the place to do it.

I considered the original question, "So, would you have shot someone in this situation? Would having pepper spray or a Taser at your disposal change your response?"

I can ONLY answer that question as a civilian. Not once did I engage in saying "The officer should have done X or Y". I didn't pick apart what his actions were. I wasn't giving advice, I wasn't intending to be percieved as speaking with the air of authority, if I was perceived in that manner, then i apologize. I didn't think saying I have training would be equivalized to I am an expert because I have training.

Your years of experience have colored your perceptions of what I have written.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I considered the original question...

Your years of experience have colored your perceptions of what I have written.

Of course they have. That's what I was explaining. I'm not mad, I'm just saying why it was perceived that way, and in similar instances likely to be perceived that way again.

Now that we've hugged it out, you wouldn't have found yourself in that situation because the officer initiated the encounter. Random violence is almost never random. That's why the "what would you do" seems hinged to me on being an LEO. Else you're not in the situation to begin with.

 

[foszoe]

Any further education will require tuition, I'm done giving my expertise for free.

When, where, and how much?

And that was before the virtal hug! and a serious question.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When, where, and how much?

And that was before the virtal hug! and a serious question.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2653-defensive-pistol-concepts-level-1-a.html

4 slots left at last count. This will be a course based on using a pistol to solve violent confrontations based on multiple real crimes that have occurred in Marion Co, with a break down of what the actual participants did, what was right, what was wrong, and what was simply unavoidable.

 

[Paul30]

Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?

The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.

To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.

Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.

Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.

Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.

Thanks for the insight on the situation. Although I know it gets old kicking a dead horse with someone who has less insight and simply wants to argue, others like myself do read it as well and can benefit from your experience and knowledge. Thanks for taking the time to describe the tactics. I agree with what you wrote as well, and fully support the officer who shot his attacker.

He is an officer of the law, he is trying to subdue and apprehend a criminal at the point the man picked up a weapon and attacked anyone including a cop. We have the luxury of running if possible, he can retreat if necessary, but he is also protecting the public from this guy and letting the guy get away is not in the public's best interest. If he is willing to attack a cop with a deadly weapon, then he will likely harm others as often as it suits him to get anything he wants including a cheap thrill. As for the non lethal options, he is alone and being attacked with a long lethal weapon that has a lot of reach. If he were surrounded by several officers then one might have the luxury of trying to subdue the man with non lethal force while the others are covering him. In this case it is a very simple case of a person attacking an officer with a lethal weapon. Even if it were not an officer it would be a good shoot. The sooner the word gets out on "the streets" that you attack someone you might get shot, the sooner the number of physical attacks on people on "the streets" will go down. When the understanding is common that if you attack someone you may be legally and morally shot by the victim then things may change.

 

[Paul30]

Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?

The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.

To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.

Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.

Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.

Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.

Thanks for the insight on the situation. Although I know it gets old kicking a dead horse with someone who has less insight and simply wants to argue, others like myself do read it as well and can benefit from your experience and knowledge. Thanks for taking the time to describe the tactics. I agree with what you wrote as well, and fully support the officer who shot his attacker.

He is an officer of the law, he is trying to subdue and apprehend a criminal at the point the man picked up a weapon and attacked anyone including a cop. We have the luxury of running if possible, he can retreat if necessary, but he is also protecting the public from this guy and letting the guy get away is not in the public's best interest. If he is willing to attack a cop with a deadly weapon, then he will likely harm others as often as it suits him to get anything he wants including a cheap thrill. As for the non lethal options, he is alone and being attacked with a long lethal weapon that has a lot of reach. If he were surrounded by several officers then one might have the luxury of trying to subdue the man with non lethal force while the others are covering him. In this case it is a very simple case of a person attacking an officer with a lethal weapon. Even if it were not an officer it would be a good shoot. The sooner the word gets out on "the streets" that you attack someone you might get shot, the sooner the number of physical attacks on people on "the streets" will go down. When the understanding is common that if you attack someone you may be legally and morally shot by the victim then things may change.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?

The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.

To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.

Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.

Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.

Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.

I say

INGO says:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BehindBlueI's again.

 

[Kaardomos]

FOP President lashes out at 'sensationalists, liars and race-baiters'

The full press release is here.

 

[mkgr22]

FOP President lashes out at 'sensationalists, liars and race-baiters'

The full press release is here.

I saw that yesterday. I'm glad the man spoke out so openly in defense of his officers. The Louisville mayor's wimpy response was disturbing.

I wish the FOP would also address the asinine comments from people who can't understand why the officer didn't shoot to wound the perp.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I saw that yesterday. I'm glad the man spoke out so openly in defense of his officers. The Louisville mayor's wimpy response was disturbing.

I wish the FOP would also address the asinine comments from people who can't understand why the officer didn't shoot to wound the perp.

The Mayor's reply didn't even achieve a level of wimpyness. What's south of wimpy, mamby-pamby?

 

[Thor]

The Mayor's reply didn't even achieve a level of wimpyness. What's south of wimpy, mamby-pamby?

I believe it is Surrender Monkey.