It was this guy's Sgt that was giving the commands. He was to the rear and left of the video.but you are in nwi aka thugland aka little chicgao.
The tatoos is not what caught my attention. It was his voice on the video. It sounded like an older male voice not someone this young.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
TMZ shows video footage of cop shooting civilian in hotel hallway.
- Thread starter jedi
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Changing weapons has nothing to do with deescalation (cool buzz word though). The officer stood there until shots were fired, that is not escalation. There is no handgun round which is just as effective as a rifle round.
You're pissed and searching for someone to argue with. You have every right to be pissed and I haven't heard anyone disagree with you that this guy should be behind bars for what he did. No one else is to blame for what that officer did, it was his decision and his alone. Your speculation that there is a department wide issue with training and/or culture is nothing more than a desire to see a few more pounds of flesh taken for what this idiot did.
Gabe Suarez has a great insite on this. Link won't work as posted, it has a dirty word in it so you will have to add the redacted letters.
http://blog.suarezinternational.com/2017/12/youre-****ed-well-yessort-of.html
http://blog.suarezinternational.com/2017/12/youre-****ed-well-yessort-of.html
INGO filter got me. NOTE you have to "fix" the link with a "bad" word after opening a window.
I am wondering if the officer in question was a military combat veteran. I am a military veteran myself, so not throwing stones here, well mostly not anyway.
My concern is that the military training is significantly different than that of a peace officer. In the military we were trained how to stay alive while engaging and destroying a hostile force. If you throw any real combat experience on top of that (which I do not have) it could seriously alter your perception of a threat level. And even though he may have also received his peace officer training, the military/combat training could contaminate the civilian/peace officer training.
I am NOT slamming the vets or military training, but I do acknowledge that some people are impacted at different levels than others by the same thing. Some folks could experience the same ambush on patrol and while three (3) guys are able to live with it and cope well three (3) others may well suffer significant shifts in their mental state.
Both military and civilian peace officer training have some overlap, but they also diverge in extreme directions elsewhere.
Of course, I could be totally wrong about this.
Regards,
Doug
My concern is that the military training is significantly different than that of a peace officer. In the military we were trained how to stay alive while engaging and destroying a hostile force. If you throw any real combat experience on top of that (which I do not have) it could seriously alter your perception of a threat level. And even though he may have also received his peace officer training, the military/combat training could contaminate the civilian/peace officer training.
I am NOT slamming the vets or military training, but I do acknowledge that some people are impacted at different levels than others by the same thing. Some folks could experience the same ambush on patrol and while three (3) guys are able to live with it and cope well three (3) others may well suffer significant shifts in their mental state.
Both military and civilian peace officer training have some overlap, but they also diverge in extreme directions elsewhere.
Of course, I could be totally wrong about this.
Regards,
Doug
No I'm really not trying to argue. I see it from a civilians eyes. LEO's see it through their lens. I do not want to see anyone fired unnecessarily, but if the department backs the way this was handled (other than his dust cover that got him fired) and they were able to clear everyone involved of any criminal charges, then yes there is a departmental problem. I understand police have a tough job, and I respect the job and the people who do it. I work in an industry where completely free and open communication and criticism is crucial to ongoing safety. When you are in a bad situation you know, it is instinctive. With multiple officers on scene someone had that feeling and should have been able to take command away from the officer making unrealistic demands, but often times subordinates will not speak up due to fear of reconciliation. That is a systemic problem, not solely found in law enforcement. I do not mean to argue merely converse from the point of view of a gun owning civilian vs. the view of a situation through the eyes of a police officer. We all see the world through different lenses it is important that we take time to try and understand through the lens of our neighbors. I am not anti police, I just think that cases and judgements like this set a dangerous precedent going forward. It is such a fineline between freestate and police state, most don't even realize which side they are truly on, especially when "your just doing your job."
I am sorry if I came off argumentative, it was not my intent. I respect police and understand that you deal with nonsense we never get to see.
Interesting the sgt whose voice you hear in the video giving the commands, retired just after the shooting and left to the phillipines.
I appreciate your post. There are a lot of things going on here and lots of emotions to fire up, I know it fired mine up. I just try to avoid searching for places to place blame and believe our society has fallen into the habit of broad brush punishment and unrealistic expectations.
This guy shouldn't have been in the position he was in. Perhaps he was a fine patrol officer or could have been a good investigator but holding a position at the tip of the spear was not an appropriate place for him.
The commands issued by the supervisor get under my skin almost as much as the officer who fired his weapon. I won't go so far as to blame the supervisor for the shooting but his attitude and tone certainly did not help to calm the situation.
There are some who are cut out to be in these positions and there are some who are not. Unfortunately there are no tests which can show which way someone will lean when under stress. I've seen the most meek and mild mannered rise to the occasion and surprise everyone with how well they performed and I've seen those who appear to be the best trained and emotionally equipped fall to pieces. LE work is a study in human nature and we are some complicated beings.
I am wondering if the officer in question was a military combat veteran. I am a military veteran myself, so not throwing stones here, well mostly not anyway.
My concern is that the military training is significantly different than that of a peace officer. In the military we were trained how to stay alive while engaging and destroying a hostile force. If you throw any real combat experience on top of that (which I do not have) it could seriously alter your perception of a threat level. And even though he may have also received his peace officer training, the military/combat training could contaminate the civilian/peace officer training.
I am NOT slamming the vets or military training, but I do acknowledge that some people are impacted at different levels than others by the same thing. Some folks could experience the same ambush on patrol and while three (3) guys are able to live with it and cope well three (3) others may well suffer significant shifts in their mental state.
Both military and civilian peace officer training have some overlap, but they also diverge in extreme directions elsewhere.
Of course, I could be totally wrong about this.
Regards,
Doug
He wasn't.... but I've often mentioned, myself, that vets seem to view certain LE interactions differently. There were more than a few times that I had to be the "you can't do that guy." However there is a LOT of truth to some guys who wish they had been in the military, living out their dreams at a PD. I find it odd, but there certainly are guys who live out their SF fantasies on the street.
Having been in the business of training LE officers for the past 10 years I'll say that I'd take prior military 15 to 1 over those who went the college route. Neither will guarantee you a 100% success rate but discipline is a major part of being a good LEO and college doesn't quite seem to instill that quite as well as the military. There are other factors as well but overall I find those with military experience better prepared for the realities of the job.
Generally I would say no, but that doesn't take into account the huge number of variables that make each situation unique.
Why, are you planning on getting plastered and waving your gun out a 5th floor hotel window anytime soon?
While I agree with the guy that wrote the article, it won't happen that way today. The world has become oversensitive about being politically correct.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,937
- 113
Phylo has already addressed most of it. Pistols aren't "just as effective". As I already said, a miss is more dangerous as well because the pistol bullet is more lethal after dry wall than a JSP 5.56. You don't "deescalate" by using a smaller gun. Honestly, that's the kind of thinking that led to the Clinton AWB. Some guns look "more threatening", as in scarier.
Once a long gun is out, the pistol only comes out if the rifle is down. I don't want two weapons to have to retain, and I'm not using an inferior weapon because the one that is safer for everyone looks too scary. Sorry, threatening.
I just think that people react differently to different weapons or shows of force. I see it regularly with family members when they go shooting with me which is definitely anything but a show of force. Every single one of them has been almost afraid to even touch the AR's on the bench, but they will all grab up the glock, cz, or even the shotgun (which is a very scary looking black 11/87 tactical). I don't have crazy muzzle devices that double as harpoons either. All of my family grew up around guns, but I'm the only one into modern non hunting rifles. So a very gun initiated test group, and each one is intimidated and acted differently around the ar's than the pistols and shotguns. Far from a scientific sampling, but I'm sure most can repeat the results. People react differently around the guns they see on tv vs the guns they grew up blasting animals with. This guy was drunk, that is his legal right, compliant, and in obvious fear noted by him begging not to be killed. We will never know if he would have reacted the same to pistols or not, but going on the fear I see in peoples eyes when I break out the AR's at the conservation club I can imagine it would have been different. Just a guess, but not a total shot in the dark. As uneducated and ignorant as it is, looks seem to matter.
By that argument perhaps AR15 rifles should just be banned nation wide.
A gun is a gun, pointing one is either justified or it isn't, deadly force is deadly force. I'd be willing to bet $5000 that the victim in this incident never thought to himself that he'd feel better about the situation if the officer had been pointing a handgun at him rather than a rifle. He was as compliant as he could have been and I doubt that would have been any different had the officer had a pistol in his hand. Focusing on the weapon makes absolutely zero sense, none.
A gun is a gun, pointing one is either justified or it isn't, deadly force is deadly force. I'd be willing to bet $5000 that the victim in this incident never thought to himself that he'd feel better about the situation if the officer had been pointing a handgun at him rather than a rifle. He was as compliant as he could have been and I doubt that would have been any different had the officer had a pistol in his hand. Focusing on the weapon makes absolutely zero sense, none.
