BART Police Officer Executes Hand-Cuffed Man?!

[Darky]

If you sense a need or danger, you draw. You don't draw just for the hell of it. I was put on gate guard while on Okinawa as extra security for a planned protest (what the hell's the point of planning and notifying the people you'll be protesting?) against the American presence on the island. We were told to keep our hands on the pistol grip of our rifles but look like we're just resting our hands there in order to look non-threatening but be able to raise our weapon quickly. We did not stand there with our rifles shouldered, even when the people got a little too rowdy and crossed the invisible line they were told not to cross. The force continuum goes from body language (authoritarian stance) to verbal (Halt! Stop what you are doing!) to physical (taking someone down/restraining them) to deadly force (defined as any action that may rightfully inflict mortal injuries or maim someone - note that deadly force doesn't necessarily result in death, nor does it necessarily involve shooting/stabbing someone. A butt-stroke to the head is considered deadly force). There's varying levels to each stage, but that's the over-simplified version.

So darky's comment about not drawing unless you plan on using it is completely false

If you feel the need to have your weapon ready, you better damn well plan on using it. Doesn't mean you will, but you should be planning on using it if necessary when you unholster/unsling your weapon.

 

[1xfloppy]

You don't draw a gun on someone just before you fire. You draw long before you think you'll need to use it (following the force continuum) so it's there WHEN you need to use it. So darky's comment about not drawing unless you plan on using it is completely false. Cops draw their weapons without firing MANY times more than they draw and actually end up firing. That's pretty obvious.

they have the intent to shoot if neccessary...your statement seems to be the false one here...have you actually had any weapons handling training?

 

[Boatwrench]

Fruitvale Station (where shooting occured) closed due to rioting by protestors. One Oakland officer hurt, one cruiser damaged, trash cans, paper racks and dumpsters set on fire. One major intersection blocked as protestors moved across Oakland forcing closing of two other stations.

 

[igotanxj]

Fruitvale Station (where shooting occured) closed due to rioting by protestors. One Oakland officer hurt, one cruiser damaged, trash cans, paper racks and dumpsters set on fire. One major intersection blocked as protestors moved across Oakland forcing closing of two other stations.

daaaaang

 

[kdailey4315]

Fruitvale Station (where shooting occured) closed due to rioting by protestors. One Oakland officer hurt, one cruiser damaged, trash cans, paper racks and dumpsters set on fire. One major intersection blocked as protestors moved across Oakland forcing closing of two other stations.

I heard that on the radio this morning. What exactly are they protesting? The cop resigned he admitted it was an accidental shooting. I'm sure the family is going to sue for a shit load of money. It's horrible what happen but it does not appear that BART is covering anything up. I don't get the protest.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Fruitvale Station (where shooting occured) closed due to rioting by protestors. One Oakland officer hurt, one cruiser damaged, trash cans, paper racks and dumpsters set on fire. One major intersection blocked as protestors moved across Oakland forcing closing of two other stations.

Animals.

 

[playwithit]

Animals.

I love it. They call them protesters as the destroy property and hurt people.

 

[5spd_xj]

have you actually had any weapons handling training?

x2. PurpleCherokee, I'm not saying you're right, wrong, ridiculous, whatever. Just curious as to how much your opinion/view on this is worth, in my personal spectrum of credibility

Thanks

 

[PurpleCherokee]

FWIW, yes I have. But regardless, I'm right

I think that the word "intent" was misused which led to a lot of miscommunication. Intent is "an aim or purpose" while the purpose of drawing a gun on somebody isn't always to shoot them, most of the time it is to be ready to shoot them.

I'm sorry that I've apparently offended and hurt some people so badly by seeming like a know it all or a "jack*ss", wipe your tears and get over it. Geez. Sometimes things don't translate very well over text when you have a certain sarcastic personality. Reminds me of someone's signature, I can't remember who but it says somethin like "warning, this post may contain humor". Some of you need to take a HUGE chill pill. You may get along with someone very well face to face that you've thought was a "jack*ss" by reading their posts. So be smart enough to realize that there's a LOT to be lost in translation on an internet forum.

 

[5spd_xj]

Glad to know you're right! And thanks for letting me know, now that I've been handed this blatant statement, I won't bother thinking for myself. Thanks so much for explaining everything to the rest of the forum! :lecture::worship: What a wonderful guy! :wave:

 

[PurpleCherokee]

5spd calm down, I'm not sure how it can be explained. Most of it is situational so there's no blanket statment that can explain all the different circumstances.

You don't draw a gun on someone just before you fire. You draw long before you think you'll need to use it (following the force continuum) so it's there WHEN you need to use it.

The main reason you draw well before you fire is because the vast majority of the time, a situation doesn't rise immediately to deadly force. Meaning that other than in situations when someone immediately pulls and points a gun and/or opens fire or pulls a knife and charges within a fairly close proximity of an officer, the force continuum escalates gradually or "fluidly" to deadly force. An example of when the force continuum DOESN'T "fluidly" escalate: an officer approaches a subject on a traffic stop. The officer starts to search the subject and the subject resists by turning away from the officer. The officer then pins or tries to restrain the subject. A fight ensues. The suspect swings at the officer so in response, the officer deploys his ASP and strikes the suspect. During the struggle, the subject breaks away and gets some distance on the officer, reaches in his pants, pulls a gun and points it at the officer. THEN the officer can open fire. Notice that the use of force escalated "fluidly" UNTILL the gun is brandished by the suspect, where the whole gunpoint but not firing thing is skipped and deadly force is used. Simply keeping a suspect at gunpoint is not deadly force. And a lot of it depends on how fast a situation escalates and whether or not a suspect simply pulls a gun, or points a gun at someone. However, in situations where the suspect has already brandished a gun but isn't pointing it at anyone, (like in a domestic where the police enter the house and there's the suspect standing there holding a gun, but not placing anyone in immediate danger) the officer would keep the suspect at gunpoint but not shoot. A lot of it is discretionary and depend on the circumstances of course but those are some common general examples.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ray H]

The cop that pulled the trigger has now resigned because of public threats.
Thats a start in the right direction. .

 

[Ray H]

5spd calm down, I'm not sure how it can be explained. Most of it is situational so there's no blanket statment that can explain all the different circumstances.



The main reason you draw well before you fire is because the vast majority of the time, a situation doesn't rise immediately to deadly force. Meaning that other than in situations when someone immediately pulls and points a gun and/or opens fire or pulls a knife and charges within a fairly close proximity of an officer, the force continuum escalates gradually or "fluidly" to deadly force. An example of when the force continuum DOESN'T "fluidly" escalate: an officer approaches a subject on a traffic stop. The officer starts to search the subject and the subject resists by turning away from the officer. The officer then pins or tries to restrain the subject. A fight ensues. The suspect swings at the officer so in response, the officer deploys his ASP and strikes the suspect. During the struggle, the subject breaks away and gets some distance on the officer, reaches in his pants, pulls a gun and points it at the officer. THEN the officer can open fire. Notice that the use of force escalated "fluidly" UNTILL the gun is brandished by the suspect, where the whole gunpoint but not firing thing is skipped and deadly force is used. Simply keeping a suspect at gunpoint is not deadly force. And a lot of it depends on how fast a situation escalates and whether or not a suspect simply pulls a gun, or points a gun at someone. However, in situations where the suspect has already brandished a gun but isn't pointing it at anyone, (like in a domestic where the police enter the house and there's the suspect standing there holding a gun, but not placing anyone in immediate danger) the officer would keep the suspect at gunpoint but not shoot. A lot of it is discretionary and depend on the circumstances of course but those are some common general examples.

Hope that helps.

Whatever happened to the good old days when a LEO was supposed to try to lower the level of force and not escalate it. At some point the training must have changed.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

Whatever happened to the good old days when a LEO was supposed to try to lower the level of force and not escalate it. At some point the training must have changed.

Yeah, because all cops have received the same training and will all react the exact same way in all situations. Yeah, the training must have changed across the nation - cops are just robots and they all receive software updates - they can't deviate from the prime directive. Uh oh...... I just checked and I didn't get the latest download..... I better go escalate something so I can conform.


You're an ignoramus.

 

[Ray H]

You're an ignoramus.

Because I have a differing opinion????

How long have you been a cop?

 

[PurpleCherokee]

I'm not really sure what he meant either :dunno:

I think maybe he's refering to the cops who escalate the situation by being antagonistic, intentionally or unintentionally. A good cop can calm a situation, to a point, but not all situations by any means. Sometimes sh*t's gunna hit the fan and there's nothin ANYONE can do about it.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

Because I have a differing opinion????

How long have you been a cop?

That's not a differing opinion...... that's a blanket statement that all cops receive the same training and it's inferred that they all will act the same way in all situations. MY training didn't change. But if I perceive a threat from someone taking an aggressive stance or plunging his hands into his belt-line, I'm going to act accordingly...... and accordingly won't mean I'm going to extend my empty hands out and say "Now hold on sir, do not hit me" or "Now hold on there sir, put the weapon down." I'm gonna point a gun or taser at the guy until he complies. Seems reasonable enough to assume that folks know a cop when they see the uniform and to take aggressive action toward a cop isn't going to be a smart decision - in any realm of thought.

Oh, and it's 18 years now.

 

[Ray H]

I'm not really sure what he meant either :dunno:

I think maybe he's refering to the cops who escalate the situation by being antagonistic, intentionally or unintentionally. A good cop can calm a situation, to a point, but not all situations by any means. Sometimes sh*t's gunna hit the fan and there's nothin ANYONE can do about it.

Im talking about escalation of force. Years ago, in my experience, the goal of a police officer's training was to difuse a situation without injuries or using the least amount of force neccessary. The last few years Ive noticed a trend towards the police actually taking force to the next level. Is this something that is being taught now?

 

[Ray H]

That's not a differing opinion...... that's a blanket statement that all cops receive the same training and it's inferred that they all will act the same way in all situations. MY training didn't change. But if I perceive a threat from someone taking an aggressive stance or plunging his hands into his belt-line, I'm going to act accordingly...... and accordingly won't mean I'm going to extend my empty hands out and say "Now hold on sir, do not hit me" or "Now hold on there sir, put the weapon down." I'm gonna point a gun or taser at the guy until he complies. Seems reasonable enough to assume that folks know a cop when they see the uniform and to take aggressive action toward a cop isn't going to be a smart decision - in any realm of thought.

Oh, and it's 18 years now.

Ok, well youve been at it awhile. Have you noticed that the newer guys seem to take things to the next level a little too quickly?
A situation that changed my view on things that happened to me a few years ago. I had a cop point his gun at me. Let me say, it doesnt matter what the guy behind the gun does for a living, when someone points a gun at you, its your life verses his. When theres gun play, its not cops and robbers anymore, its human verses human. He pointed his gun at me because I informed him I had a gun in my glove box. I did this as a point of information for him and not as a threat, I was sitting upright in my drivers seat with both hands on the wheel, and I was calm. Something in his training told him that he should aim a gun at me. I grew up pro police in a police family and I was a deputy but that was a life changing moment for me. When I grew up and was trained, it was the officers job to de-escalete the situation. That doesnt seem the case now.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

Im talking about escalation of force. Years ago, in my experience, the goal of a police officer's training was to difuse a situation without injuries or using the least amount of force neccessary. The last few years Ive noticed a trend towards the police actually taking force to the next level. Is this is something that is being tought now?

Doesn't sound like you have a good grasp of the concept. You're more grounded on the verbal de-escalation. All cops receive training on verbal de-escalation...... but words aren't going to always keep bad things from happening. In a perfect world, EVERYONE would simply want to stop and talk things through - but history dictates otherwise.

Cops are always trained to first use verbal communication. There's always been good training for cops to de-escalate all situations, never to escalate the situation...... unless the subject's actions dictate otherwise. But cops have never been trained to take a punch, stab or bullet from anyone posing such a threat. Taking actions just above that being taken by the subject IS de-escalation. He grabs, I apply a control hold or pressure point application and cuff him, he punches or attempts a punch, I tase him, he pulls a weapon....... I put him down. Same applies if the subject is using this kind of force on anyone OTHER than me as well. The end result is de-escalation.