This was intense

I missed the video--what was it??? It's unavailable now.

NEVERMIND: Thanks to @NCFubar
 
Last edited:
Why, at some point, did the officers not quit screwing around with their radios and focus solely on the guy with the knife. The one guy (the one that got choked) can be seen in the other officer's camera with one hand on his radio and his gun in the other, right at the moment the perp was getting back up from being shot the first time.
 
So you want to shoot me??? I've shot a many a guns in my days, I've seen it done, so I know it is possible. Don't retreat! Then you don't have to shoot from a retreating position. The man had a knife, they have firearms and extensive weapons training, your trying to make me believe that 2 highly trained men...with guns, can't hit a leg?

Sorry i was not clear. I have the training tools IE Airsoft pistols to test your idea out.
 
I'm not going to second guess his decision to retreat or when to start shooting... I wasn't there. But he didn't follow one of the basic rules I've had drilled into me from day 1: keep shooting until the threat stops.
 
The man had a knife, they have firearms and extensive weapons training, your trying to make me believe that 2 highly trained men...with guns, can't hit a leg?
Aside from the practicality issues which make doing this difficult, another big problem is the backstop or lack there of. There is an old saying that goes around a lot of firearm forums: you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun and this philosophy should apply to cops equally.

Then there is the legal perspective. Use of firearms is considered deadly / lethal force. From a legal perspective, there is no gray area on that and the threat either justified lethal force or it did not. Consequently, one does not use a gun to shoot to wound or shoot to warn or deter. One shoots to stop said threat. Doing so may or may not kill the target.
 
Sorry i was not clear. I have the training tools IE Airsoft pistols to test your idea out.
Take him up on it - You'll be amazed by what you learn. Your brain cannot assimilate this info by talking about it. you have to experience it first hand.
 
Last edited:
So you want to shoot me??? I've shot a many a guns in my days, I've seen it done, so I know it is possible. Don't retreat! Then you don't have to shoot from a retreating position. The man had a knife, they have firearms and extensive weapons training, your trying to make me believe that 2 highly trained men...with guns, can't hit a leg?

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Take him up on it - You'll be amazed by what you learn. Your brain cannot assimilate this info by talking about it. you have to experience it first hand.
I'd like to...try. I'm not trolling, it was just a thought, I'm not saying you guys are wrong.
 
The autopsy report would be interesting, shots placed, he may not have had any drugs in his system but was running on adrenaline
before the officers arrived and ramped up after being shot in first exchange.
Perhaps too quick to exit patrol cars, use PA system to command him, then knock him down with the car.
Easier to fix a broken leg then dig bullets out of him. Looks like a heavy shirt would make the taser ineffective.
The video from the second officer who got in choke hold was intense.

Perhaps the department should issue the RONI for their Glock 17?
 
Last edited:
Monday morning quarterbacking I don’t like but AAR’s are a part of any action, or they should be, and a huge benefit to training.

As such, if I were sitting in the AAR my questions would have been:

In the beginning of the encounter, say 10 seconds after the initial engagement, when you had a decent triangulation of fire established with at least 3 officers, you established good fields of fire and the perpetrator was advancing slowly, wouldn’t that have been a good time to consider less than deadly force by one officer with the other two prepared to fire if it failed?

It seems to me that while you continually communicated commands to the perp and used your radios you seemed to tunnel vision without communicating effectively with each other on the ground. How do we avoid that in the future.

Once you made the decision to go to deadly force why oh why did you then think it was a good idea to switch to less than deadly force. And why did your partner put away his sidearm? The threat wasn’t over yet.
 
When someone is dead set on committing suicide by cop, don't risk the lives if others by talking to him. Give him what he wants.
That's my lack of compassion response to this.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Monday morning quarterbacking I don’t like but AAR’s are a part of any action, or they should be, and a huge benefit to training.

As such, if I were sitting in the AAR my questions would have been:

In the beginning of the encounter, say 10 seconds after the initial engagement, when you had a decent triangulation of fire established with at least 3 officers, you established good fields of fire and the perpetrator was advancing slowly, wouldn’t that have been a good time to consider less than deadly force by one officer with the other two prepared to fire if it failed?

It seems to me that while you continually communicated commands to the perp and used your radios you seemed to tunnel vision without communicating effectively with each other on the ground. How do we avoid that in the future.

Once you made the decision to go to deadly force why oh why did you then think it was a good idea to switch to less than deadly force. And why did your partner put away his sidearm? The threat wasn’t over yet.
I give them outstanding commendation until the part where the guy gets back up and was able ot so easily overtake a cop. That was almost laughable--not sure what the hell happened there for him to break down so easily. almost looked like the cop surrendered to the perp.

But before that, those cops did more than I could ask of them in trying to not take a life that didn't absolutely need to be--until he charged.
 


Here is commentary by a cop (retired). I don't agree with everything he says but I'd say he gets it right most of the time. He goes into detail about deadly force decisions and why they put their guns away...etc.

I don't think a taser would have been a good option but I think I would have used the car on him before I back peddled all the way to the highway.
 
Last edited:
Another thing to keep in mind, Athens is a college town so giving extraordinary chances to put down the knife could be part of the local training.
Could also explain all the radio work while the guy was still a threat, getting permission to fire etc.


Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I give them outstanding commendation until the part where the guy gets back up and was able ot so easily overtake a cop. That was almost laughable--not sure what the hell happened there for him to break down so easily. almost looked like the cop surrendered to the perp.

But before that, those cops did more than I could ask of them in trying to not take a life that didn't absolutely need to be--until he charged.

I agree. Just posing what I feel are valid questions that should be answered in an AAR and then used for training purposes.

IMO, the only way they failed at all was in communicating with each other. However this is a training issue. If they trained more as a team some of this might change. But I’m not sure that’s feasible.

So, for example, in the beginning they were all shouting the same command. As a team with better communication one of them should have been shouting the command while the others figured out a resolution to the situation whether or not it played out the same way is moot.

The same with the switch to the taser at the end. With better communication one officer should have stayed hot and ready to fire while one switched to taser and the other prepared to move in with cuffs. Instead they got caught with their pants down as nobody was still trained on him at a good angle and hot.

And I’m sure the answer to whether or not to try less than deadly force in the beginning is “Dude, he had a knife. We are trained to command and create space which we did. I don’t want to be the one with a taser facing a knife do you?” Well that would be my answer. Lol.
 
Going back to your earlier funny comment: This one was weird enough that kneecapping the guy might have been possible - technically - he stood still long enough. But it's still a terrible idea. Assume you made the shot, now you have a man with a knife on the ground bleeding. Are you gonna give him aid and let him stab you? You haven't solved the problem with a half-measure. If your intent is to go less-than-lethal your pistol is not the tool for that.
 
Last edited:
Im actually surprised that the educated, trained, competent people on here are even indulging in a conversation about "shooting for a leg shot". Its clear even when shooting for center mass as trained a person can remain to be a threat and push forward VERY quickly. As many other posts have said, a deadly threat warrants shots to center mass UNTIL THE THREAT STOPS. Period. I have no knowledge of these officers but one thing I noticed is they were not using standard sights which indicates to me they may have been better trained than other officers who are issued a gun and holster it up and forget about that tool let alone train with it. Talking about aiming for small body parts decreasing your percentage to stop the threat while being faced with someone trying to KILL YOU is asinine. Just my .02
 
Going back to your earlier funny comment: This one was weird enough that kneecapping the guy might have been possible - technically - he stood still long enough. But it's still a terrible idea. Assume you made the shot, now you have a man with a knife on the ground bleeding. Are you gonna give him aid and let him stab you? You haven't solved the problem with a half-measure. If your intent is to go less-than-lethal your pistol is not the tool for that.
I thought all police were equipped with the bean bag shot guns, that would bring him to his knees. Maybe the knee shot was a bad idea in this situation, but I have seen videos of a officer shooting someone in the knee. The perp had a knife, but dropped it immediately after feeling the bullet hit the knee. I might not be a cop, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. Lol. The officers in the video were clearly justified in their actions, I kind of agree with others in this thread...their patience far exceeded what mine would have been in this situation.
 
ITL? asked a reasonable question, and I support the question being asked. As shooters, we should welcome the opportunity to educate others. As a long-time shooter and armed professional, I've answered this question a lot of times if asked in an innocent manner truly seeking a reasoned answer. A lot of the previous answers are correct. To give my answer: A precision shot to a leg to stop a stationary person ( this guy was not) takes absolute aim and all factors have to add up to even try it. And, it needs to be done with a scoped rifle to ensure perfect placement. All this stuff you see about marksmen making precision shots on moving targets is Hollywood stuff. People never move in a straight line at a constant speed; wind/heat/moisture/clothing/state of mind/intoxication/caliber/bullet choice, etc... all play into the equation. And, it honestly is a literal equation, done beforehand with ample time to plan the shot. Professional full-time shooters could not have guaranteed that shot made with a G17 after several minutes of exertion and adrenaline, with a pistol caliber bullet, on a subject with a lot of variables, and had a 100 percent certainty of stopping the bad guy. LEO have to have that 100 percent promise ever time they fire, because we have to endure the "afteraction" scrutiny of educated and uneducated "experts" and they legal system. I appreciate your question and have seen it asked many, many, many times. I, for one, grew up watching Roy Rogers and the Lone Ranger; they shot a LOT of guns out of hands !!! I've done a lot of CQB, SRT, HRT, DAP, etc...( the pros here will recognize those terms) as well as several years of competition. I am an above average shooter, plainly said. I would not have tried a leg shot in that situation. The officer went straight to a COM ( center of mass) target and did well. Not to mention the fact that the officers were purely in a "reactive" mode, which is common for patrol calls. The offender controlled the situation.

Both officers had already left their vehicle, which is where the less than lethal (LTL) shotgun would have been. A supporting officer could have used one, but I'm still not sure that would have changed this one bit. Not all agencies or units have them.

The breakdown of the "contact/cover officer " technique is what led to the second officer ending up in a chokehold, but that's armchair quarterbacking and is a "future training from lessons learned " situation. As is, don't be in a hurry to rush in after a shoot. Keep your distance until you're sure they're finished fighting.
Additionally, the "tactical J" retreat from a Knife while firing was doctrinally sound and tactically smart, but it was a "tactical I" without the hook at the end, which left him on the railroad tracks. The curve to open up lateral distance is essential to surviving and has been proven repeatedly. Anything under 21 feet ( or longer in my personal experience) without a distance extension, the blade wins every time. It's not even close. But, again, that's a training thing, not an armchair quarterback comment. I'm glad they have the opportunity to discuss this rationally and constructively, versus attending another blue funeral.


They did well, nobody hurt that didn't need hurting. This could have gone a lot worse, a lot of ways. I think the officers did extremely well.

Thanks for the question/'comment, Is This Legal !!
 
Last edited:
ITL? asked a reasonable question, and I support the question being asked. As shooters, we should welcome the opportunity to educate others. As a long-time shooter and armed professional, I've answered this question a lot of times if asked in an innocent manner truly seeking a reasoned answer. A lot of the previous answers are correct. To give my answer: A precision shot to a leg to stop a stationary person takes absolute aim and all factors have to add up to even try it. And, it needs to be done with a scoped rifle to ensure perfect placement. All this stuff you see about marksmen making precision shots on moving targets is Hollywood stuff. People never move in a straight line at a constant speed; wind/heat/moisture/clothing/state of mind/intoxication/caliber/bullet choice, etc... all play into the equation. And, it honestly is a literal equation, done beforehand with ample time to plan the shot. Professional full-time shooters could not have guaranteed that shot made with a G17 after several minutes of exertion and adrenaline, with a pistol caliber bullet, on a subject with a lot of variables, and had a 100 percent certainty of stopping the bad guy. LEO have to have that 100 percent promise ever time they fire, because we have to endure the "afteraction" scrutiny of educated and uneducated "experts" and they legal system. I appreciate your question and have seen it asked many, many, many times. I, for one, grew up watching Roy Rogers and the Lone Ranger; they shot a LOT of guns out of hands !!! I've done a lot of CQB, SRT, HRT, DAP, etc...( the pros here will recognize those terms) as well as several years of competition. I am an above average shooter, plainly said. I would not have tried a leg shot in that situation. The officer went straight to a COM ( center of mass) target and did well. Not to mention the fact that the officers were purely in a "reactive" mode, which is common for patrol calls. The offender controlled the situation.

Both officers had already left their vehicle, which is where the less than lethal (LTL) shotgun would have been. A supporting officer could have used one, but I'm still not sure that would have changed this one bit. Not all agencies or units have them.

The breakdown of the "contact/cover officer " technique is what led to the second officer ending up in a chokehold, but that's armchair quarterbacking and is a "future training from lessons learned " situation. As is, don't be in a hurry to rush in after a shoot. Keep your distance until you're sure they're finished fighting.
Additionally, the "tactical J" retreat from a Knife while firing was doctrinally sound and tactically smart, but it was a "tactical I" without the hook at the end, which left him on the railroad tracks. The curve to open up lateral distance is essential to surviving and has been proven repeatedly. Anything under 21 feet ( or longer in my personal experience) without a distance extension, the blade wins every time. It's not even close. But, again, that's a training thing, not an armchair quarterback comment. I'm glad they have the opportunity to discuss this rationally and constructively, versus attending another blue funeral.


They did well, nobody hurt that didn't need hurting. This could have gone a lot worse, a lot of ways. I think the officers did extremely well.

Thanks for the question/'comment, Is This Legal !!

That right there should have been the first reply to his question. Very well said.
 
Once you made the decision to go to deadly force why oh why did you then think it was a good idea to switch to less than deadly force. And why did your partner put away his sidearm? The threat wasn’t over yet.
This was my first thought, too (from my vantage point of zero experience and
zero training). I wonder if, had there been only one cop, he would have done the same. That is, did each (perhaps unconsciously) let down his guard because he knew the other was there?
 
.
Going back to your earlier funny comment: This one was weird enough that kneecapping the guy might have been possible - technically - he stood still long enough. But it's still a terrible idea. Assume you made the shot, now you have a man with a knife on the ground bleeding. Are you gonna give him aid and let him stab you? You haven't solved the problem with a half-measure. If your intent is to go less-than-lethal your pistol is not the tool for that.
...and playing legal devil's advocate...

I'd bet it's far easier for a person living who was intentionally "maimed" by police could have a field day with the PD and a good snake attorney. The pain and suffering...blah blah blah.
 
They backed up about 100yds too far and let it escalate, IMO. Once it got to the public street and out of the corridor of trees they endangered the public.
I thought the same thing. How quickly could the perp have changed the shooting lines by running around like a wild man??? Then the cops would have been muzzle-sweeping the FD and whomever else was out on that main street.
 
Back
Top Bottom