This was intense

Pack72 said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is why we have "training divisions"; you look at the goods and bads and work to educate other cops on what happened. It is entirely possible you are correct. Partners influence each other, maybe one of them knew the guy from past calls and thought they could talk him down , or, or , or, etc... Maybe they thought once the initial shoot happened, that it was over. So, holster up and move in for the cuff, call EMS, start writing and it's all done....
 
JBoyette said:
When I teach my self-defense handgun class I have a drill that teaches you your real reaction time to distance ratio.

It scares everyone how slow they are, to include me.
Click to expand...

Wanted to comment on this before I read all the rest...

If you are talking about the "You draw and fire while the other person runs the opposite way, then measure distance he can cover before you make a hit" then yes, this was stupid eye opening for me. Under stress my draw stroke went to crap, my aim sucked, and though I think I was hitting a man sized target well, hitting the popper you ha up was a pain. I ended up just mag dumping in frustration.
 
9outof10mms said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed, entirely. I'm all for compassion to the mentally ill or whatever, but you have to draw your line. But, that's what cops sign up for. They make the call in a split second and have to live with the consequences. That is the reality.

I compliment these guys, they made the best of a bad situation. I think they acted appropriately upon first contact. Personally, I warn you twice. I come from a large urban department and have 20 plus years on the job. But, that's me on a bad day. Maybe, I've answered 15 calls to the same house and I've been able to talk them down when they're off meds. Maybe I'm related to them or attend church with them or whatever. It's a personal call that you have to make, and make it on the spot.

Cops are folks, too. Not all are awesome, not all are horrible. Very few are on the job to hurt people, shoot dogs, take your guns, or "get over" because we're "Kings men", like some posters here think. It's definitely not to get rich !
 
Last edited:
9outof10mms said:
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.
Click to expand...

not to mention he lost the line of sight with that stupid pompous grass median. Just all in all terrible tactics that resulted in endangering his fellow cop and the public. Knife to a gunfight is a done deal. Shouting weak commands 50 times with a knife weilding perp is misplaced CYA crap.
 
9outof10mms said:
Dollars to donuts it wasn't intended to hit them in the knee.
Click to expand...
Na, the last video I'd seen... It clearly was. He had done it in a prior situation, and in the video, he even said to his partner, "should I do just like the last time". I think he may have even gotten in trouble over it. I'll see if I can find the video.
 
Just a quick point to make about the "Shoot them in the knee" foolishness...

If you shoot someone in the knee, then you are admitting that your life wasn't truly in danger, and there were other options to de-escalate the situation. Cops especially, carry many different tools that are "less than lethal", so if I were an attorney and a cop admitted to shooting my client in the leg to de-escalate the situation, I would own him in court for using excessive force >if< the other options weren't used first.

This goes for us in the civilian world especially. We are legally only supposed to shoot someone if our life or body is at grave risk of injury. When we pull the trigger it legally has to be an absolute last resort. Shooting someone in the leg tells an attorney "You weren't in fear of your life enough because you decided a risky shot to an extremity was possible."
 
Sandman_NC said:
But your Honor, I was aiming for his head! lol
Click to expand...

I’m not saying you can’t >try< to shoot someone in the leg. But you still have to ask yourself, if I can take a risk at a more difficult target and possibly miss, is my life truly in as grave a danger as it needs to be to justify using a firearm.

I will say that if you do, never admit to it. Have the “i was aiming center mass” story down pat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JBoyette said:
Its where you hit them at, not what you hit them with.
Click to expand...
I wish the forum would put this up in a prominent place. We have been saying for Decades...Presentation,Penetration, and Placement are ALL that matters with handguns. ALL!!!!
Clintism...Handguns poke holes In people, Rifles put holes Through people, Shotguns put shit on the wall.
Clintism...85% of all people shot with a handgun survive..85% of all people shot with a rifle Die.
Battery Oaks,ism….No magic bullets will make up for PLACEMENT and PENETRATION.
 
B00ger said:
Just a quick point to make about the "Shoot them in the knee" foolishness...

If you shoot someone in the knee, then you are admitting that your life wasn't truly in danger, and there were other options to de-escalate the situation. Cops especially, carry many different tools that are "less than lethal", so if I were an attorney and a cop admitted to shooting my client in the leg to de-escalate the situation, I would own him in court for using excessive force >if< the other options weren't used first.

This goes for us in the civilian world especially. We are legally only supposed to shoot someone if our life or body is at grave risk of injury. When we pull the trigger it legally has to be an absolute last resort. Shooting someone in the leg tells an attorney "You weren't in fear of your life enough because you decided a risky shot to an extremity was possible."
Click to expand...

This is what our stupid legal system has been perverted into but that doesn't make it right. If the cops had shot that guy in the legs and he fell to the ground, he would have obviously been less of a threat. Just because they would have been able to de-escalate using guns without killing him doesn't mean that the taser or going hands on actually was a sane option beforehand. That is why I said I would have used the car...deadly force to take out his legs but not actually intend to destroy his internal organs. They guy was obviously having some mental issues.

Same goes with the stupid notion that I should have to fist fight with someone who starts a fight with me because they don't have a weapon. Fists are deadly and every judge that convicts someone for using a weapon against an "unarmed" person who attacked them should have to play the knockout game with a few friends of mine. I'd volunteer but I need to preserve my hands at this point in life.
 
georgel said:
A taser is a compliance tool, not a defensive tool. Because the suspect had a knife, he escalated the situation to a defensive one for the officers. Compliance is getting the suspect to submit to commands, but once a deadly weapon is involved you enter another level in the escalation of force. You apparently don't understand the positioning of tasers, pepper spray, batons, etc. in the continuum of force.

I too have some exercises that demonstrate, what is basically the Tueller Rule. 1.5 sec is a number I refer to. 1.5 seconds for a basic draw to rounds on target. 1.5 seconds to cover 21ft by an attacker. Even if you hit him, he's on top of you physically by that time. Get out of his way.

Generally, I don't like firing while backing up. High likely-hood of tripping because you can't see where you're going and you're never going to 'eout run him, because he's going forward while you're going backward. He will overtake you quickly. I might back up a little for positioning, but if i'm fully backing up to avoid him then I've lost command of the stiuation and I'm reacting to him. He's now in command.

People always joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight, but inside of 10ft. the knife is king.
Click to expand...

I agree pretty much with all of this. I will say, within 10 feet you are getting cut by the knife wielder. I still think you can kill him with the gun, but you are likely taking one or more strikes. We train that it takes 5 shots to put someone down assuming shots to the thoracic trunk. In the case of a charging opponent we are taught to shoot their pelvic girdle. Ideally you fight the knife and get the gun into play one handed. It's going to be a big bowl of suck

What i don't like is the two cops separated. He could have advanced in between the two pivoted and attacked putting the other cop in danger of first cops shots. Personally, I think i would have shot him with 5 good center mass shots after he kept advancing. I also would not leave my partner. This was suicide by cop. Not all cops want to shoot people. I think one cop could have went to taser while the other cop kept the gun on him and engaged if he rushed. No good solutions here. The dude wanted to die.

V
 
SC380 said:
This is what our stupid legal system has been perverted into but that doesn't make it right. If the cops had shot that guy in the legs and he fell to the ground, he would have obviously been less of a threat. Just because they would have been able to de-escalate using guns without killing him doesn't mean that the taser or going hands on actually was a sane option beforehand. That is why I said I would have used the car...deadly force to take out his legs but not actually intend to destroy his internal organs. They guy was obviously having some mental issues.

Same goes with the stupid notion that I should have to fist fight with someone who starts a fight with me because they don't have a weapon. Fists are deadly and every judge that convicts someone for using a weapon against an "unarmed" person who attacked them should have to play the knockout game with a few friends of mine. I'd volunteer but I need to preserve my hands at this point in life.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that second part is wrong. Hands can be deadly weapons. The key phrase is “I was in fear of my life.” Plenty of people in the ground due to fists alone. There is no “weapon requirement” to use a firearm in self defense.

You are free to disagree, but firearms are deadly force options. Attempting to use lethal force in a less lethal way proves the need wasn’t there.

Should these cops have tried something else? I doubt it. But I wasn’t there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Is this leagal? said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yea, this is all kinds of horseshit. You have shot guns so that gives you some kind of credibility here? That last sentence is so full of misunderstandings i don't know where to begin. I want you to come to a force on force training class. Put you in some scenarios and see what happens. Real life is not like it is in the movies. This is not a range scenario with no consequences.

V
 
B00ger said:
The key phrase is “I was in fear of my life.”
Click to expand...

Just a gentle correction or addendum: in NC, the complete "key phrase" is found in - § 14-51.3. ... However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

That "or great bodily harm" is rather important, but, I think, too commonly omitted (even if admittedly only for the sake of brevity) c.f. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/serious-serious-bodily-injury/ . There was another thread here based on this article (event in CA): https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...y-man-was-beaten-with-a-brick-das-office-says where "“Jones also admitted allegations of using a deadly and dangerous weapon, a brick, during the commission of the crime and that she inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim,” the DA’s office said Thursday."

I concur with SC380 that the "disparity of force" concept is a non-sequitur: the issue is capability and intention for (serious bodily) harm and hands/fists of an enraged, drugged, or malicious person fill that description.
 
Last edited:
Variable said:
Yea, this is all kinds of horseshit. You have shot guns so that gives you some kind of credibility here? That last sentence is so full of misunderstandings i don't know where to begin. I want you to come to a force on force training class. Put you in some scenarios and see what happens. Real life is not like it is in the movies. This is not a range scenario with no consequences.

V
Click to expand...
Yea, I'm sure a lot of you guys would just love to kick the crap outta me. It was just a question. Just for the record... I've never been in the military, never had any type of training to fight, I have shot and owned a whole different assortment of firearms...when I was allowed. I'm older and too busted up from running heavy equipment, and laboring for my money my whole life to stand a chance against a younger, highly trained individual. But one thing I do have...is a lot of heart. I'll let you guys hurt me, if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to run. I've learned in my life, that not standing, and facing my fears, made me weak. Weak to the point of putting myself in grave danger. I'm no badass, but I can tell you with all confidence, I'm a man today. Movies are horseshit, and I don't watch em anymore, the same goes for TV too, no, I just try to educate myself in the Constitution, and find a solution to the predicament I've pit myself in, know the difference between right and wrong, and hopefully someday, be amongst a group of men who are standing for what is right, and training with them, to prepare for what I Know Is The Inevitable. Seeing videos like this...of people outright losing their minds, whether it be from drugs, hatred, political b.s.,or what ever their purposes are, is very concerning to me. I swore to my wife, when we were married in April, that I would cherish her, and protect her all of my days, and I intend to do so.
 
Is this leagal? said:
I'll let you guys hurt me, if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


I don't think you clearly understand what "force on force" training is. It's not MMA, nobody would kick your ass. But go on with that chip on your shoulder, it seems to keep the conversation lively.
 
GreatGazoo said:
Just a gentle correction or addendum: in NC, the complete "key phrase" is found in - § 14-51.3. ... However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

That "or great bodily harm" is rather important, but, I think, too commonly omitted (even if admittedly only for the sake of brevity) c.f. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/serious-serious-bodily-injury/ . There was another thread here based on this article (event in CA): https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...y-man-was-beaten-with-a-brick-das-office-says where "“Jones also admitted allegations of using a deadly and dangerous weapon, a brick, during the commission of the crime and that she inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim,” the DA’s office said Thursday."

I concur with SC380 that the "disparity of force" concept is a non-sequitur: the issue is capability and intention for (serious bodily) harm and hands/fists of an enraged, drugged, or malicious person fill that description.
Click to expand...

Post 127...I addressed “great bodily harm.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is this leagal? said:
Yea, I'm sure a lot of you guys would just love to kick the crap outta me. It was just a question. Just for the record... I've never been in the military, never had any type of training to fight, I have shot and owned a whole different assortment of firearms...when I was allowed. I'm older and too busted up from running heavy equipment, and laboring for my money my whole life to stand a chance against a younger, highly trained individual. But one thing I do have...is a lot of heart. I'll let you guys hurt me, if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to run. I've learned in my life, that not standing, and facing my fears, made me weak. Weak to the point of putting myself in grave danger. I'm no badass, but I can tell you with all confidence, I'm a man today. Movies are horseshit, and I don't watch em anymore, the same goes for TV too, no, I just try to educate myself in the Constitution, and find a solution to the predicament I've pit myself in, know the difference between right and wrong, and hopefully someday, be amongst a group of men who are standing for what is right, and training with them, to prepare for what I Know Is The Inevitable. Seeing videos like this...of people outright losing their minds, whether it be from drugs, hatred, political b.s.,or what ever their purposes are, is very concerning to me. I swore to my wife, when we were married in April, that I would cherish her, and protect her all of my days, and I intend to do so.
Click to expand...
Who, specifically, has even remotely gotten close to threatening to hurt you? Inviting you to Force on Force training?
 
9outof10mms said:
Dollars to donuts it wasn't intended to hit them in the knee.
Click to expand...
This is the video, it's not a knife, but a screwdriver, which could be just a lethal in the right hands. I think this also kinda falls along the lines of someone else's argument here, that if lethal force is used below the belt...so to speak, it can be argued and won in court, you really wasn't "in fear of your life". I know this is a completely different scenario. Just thought I'd share it with you.
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
Who, specifically, has even remotely gotten close to threatening to hurt you? Inviting you to Force on Force training?
Click to expand...
I don't even know what force on force training is, just the name seems to tale the tale to me. I've had to learn to fight the hard way...by fighting. So when I hear the term "force", I think, threat, my instincts to force, threats, or whatever you call it, is fight. You don't learn to fight good without sustaining some sort of injuries, I know this from just my few limited skirmishes in my time. I don't know why, I just think everyone that attacks my opinions, sometimes...is LEO, and I feel I'm hated or strongly disliked by LEO...because most in here know of my past.
 
Is this leagal? said:
I don't even know what force on force training is, just the name seems to tale the tale to me. I've had to learn to fight the hard way...by fighting. So when I hear the term "force", I think, threat, my instincts to force, threats, or whatever you call it, is fight. You don't learn to fight good without sustaining some sort of injuries, I know this from just my few limited skirmishes in my time. I don't know why, I just think everyone that attacks my opinions, sometimes...is LEO, and I feel I'm hated or strongly disliked by LEO...because most in here know of my past.
Click to expand...

SMH...


Force on Force training is when you are given a paintball gun or some similar but very close facsimile of a firearm or weapon and then you are put into real situations against real people to see how you would fare. It includes things like home invasion defense, being attacked while in your car, being surprised while walking into your house, walking up on others having a fight.

It is in no way a “I’m gonna kick your butt” type of thing, but a real and highly effective tool that puts students in as close to the real deal situation as they can be without actually causing lasting harm.

And I assure you, you aren’t disliked by LEO for your past. That sounds like projection. What does put people off is the incessant reminder of your past and the struggles it brings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
SMH...


Force on Force training is when you are given a paintball gun or some similar but very close facsimile of a firearm or weapon and then you are put into real situations against real people to see how you would fare. It includes things like home invasion defense, being attacked while in your car, being surprised while walking into your house, walking up on others having a fight.

It is in no way a “I’m gonna kick your butt” type of thing, but a real and highly effective tool that puts students in as close to the real deal situation as they can be without actually causing lasting harm.

And I assure you, you aren’t disliked by LEO for your past. That sounds like projection. What does put people off is the incessant reminder of your past and the struggles it brings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My wife must be very understanding lol, I wish she would've pointed this fact out to me...It makes sence though. Thank you.
 
SC380 said:
Same goes with the stupid notion that I should have to fist fight with someone who starts a fight with me because they don't have a weapon. Fists are deadly and every judge that convicts someone for using a weapon against an "unarmed" person who attacked them should have to play the knockout game with a few friends of mine. I'd volunteer but I need to preserve my hands at this point in life.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many times someone here has posed this concept but it's wrong, fists do not equal deadly force.

There probably isn't a soul on this forum that hasn't been in a fistfight and I'm willing to bet that none of us died from it.

The active word in the use of force laws, that people conveniently leave out is reasonable. "In fear for my life" isn't a magic phrase that forgives your actions, it's a part of the law that a "reasonable" person would believe.

And don't even start with that "I'm so feeble that..." yang, if you're that bad off you should wear a helmet.
 
J R Green said:
I don't know how many times someone here has posed this concept but it's wrong, fists do not equal deadly force.

There probably isn't a soul on this forum that hasn't been in a fistfight and I'm willing to bet that none of us died from it.

The active word in the use of force laws, that people conveniently leave out is reasonable. "In fear for my life" isn't a magic phrase that forgives your actions, it's a part of the law that a "reasonable" person would believe.

And don't even start with that "I'm so feeble that..." yang, if you're that bad off you should wear a helmet.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you read, I am not talking about the courts opinion, or the cops opinion, or the legal definition. I am talking about the actual fact that people can be very quickly killed by fists, sometimes one blow to the head, very often by falling to the ground and hitting their head after being knocked out. Even if you do not die from these blows, you can suffer serious bodily harm and permanent injury. If you deny that you are an idiot plain and simple.

Most of the souls on this forum that have been in a fist fight have not been in a real fight.

I didn't claim there was a magic phrase, that was the guy who talks as "if he is a lawyer"
 
SC380 said:
Once again, if you read, I am not talking about the courts opinion, or the cops opinion, or the legal definition. I am talking about the actual fact that people can be very quickly killed by fists, sometimes one blow to the head, very often by falling to the ground and hitting their head after being knocked out. Even if you do not die from these blows, you can suffer serious bodily harm and permanent injury. If you deny that you are an idiot plain and simple.

Most of the souls on this forum that have been in a fist fight have not been in a real fight.

I didn't claim there was a magic phrase, that was the guy who talks as "if he is a lawyer"
Click to expand...

And in any of those cases where you feel you are in fear for your life or grave bodily harm you can defend yourself with a firearm. No one is saying you have to go hand to hand with people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
And in any of those cases where you feel you are in fear for your life or grave bodily harm you can defend yourself with a firearm. No one is saying you have to go hand to hand with people.
Click to expand...
Since you only play a lawyer on the forum I am guessing you don't know that you can't just say those words and get off. A lot more goes into determining that is true than just because you said so.
 
SC380 said:
Since you only play a lawyer on the forum I am guessing you don't know that you can't just say those words and get off. A lot more goes into determining that is true than just because you said so.
Click to expand...

I’m not playing a lawyer. I just actually paid attention in class when getting my carry license. And no you can’t just “say those words and get off” you have to actually have experienced it. It also doesn’t mean you have to take a butt whipping because you are afraid of court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
I’m not playing a lawyer. I just actually paid attention in class when getting my carry license. And no you can’t just “say those words and get off” you have to actually have experienced it. It also doesn’t mean you have to take a butt whipping because you are afraid of court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well I guess if that is what your instructor told you then good luck.
 
SC380 said:
Most of the souls on this forum that have been in a fist fight have not been in a real fight.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve been in a fist fight since I hit an age with double digits. However, your comment reminded me of a line / concept I read in The Little Black Book of Violence. Basically, if you go into it thinking fist fight and your opponent is thinking combat, you’re going to be in for a surprise and A LOT of possibly life altering hurt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom