SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Law Enforcement

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:09
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Front_Sight_Bang View Post
There’s ALOT to unpack in this situation. I’m curious as to why you feel this way, if I may ask.
Sure.
There are quite a few Supreme Court decisions regarding use of force and vehicle pursuits. Probably the most cited is Scott v Harris.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

As the law progresses, the Court has been giving officers immunity from suit - but they have telegraphed that the death of a passenger may be actionable and I haven't yet seen the court decide that issue
.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1117_1bn5.pdf

This application of deadly force was in a populated area and compounded with other traffic on the road.

Just as we teach protective details that they must consider the presence of innocent bystanders and it is not a good idea to have a gunfight in a crowded hotel lobby, I suggest that shooting the driver of a moving vehicle - risks that vehicle going into the path of an innocent person's vehicle, or even into one of the business/houses along the way.

The innocent bystanders have a right not to be hurt and it is reasonably foreseeable that this could happen. Civil liability could attach. I am also suggesting that if an innocent were killed, manslaughter charges might result.

Just saying.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:19
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massgrunt View Post
He chased down and shot two murder suspects that were putting rounds into his cruiser with zero injuries to innocent parties. He fumbled a reload in probably the most stressful moment of his life. I'm scratching my head at your comments. What would you have preferred that he do?
As I posted above, consider the presence of the other vehicles on the road, and the proximity of the houses/businesses. The result was the best that could come from his "closure" with the subjects. Best to control the situation and not to have gunfights between vehicles IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:19
Agoge Agoge is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
Sure.
There are quite a few Supreme Court decisions regarding use of force and vehicle pursuits. Probably the most cited is Scott v Harris.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

As the law progresses, the Court has been giving officers immunity from suit - but they have telegraphed that the death of a passenger may be actionable and I haven't yet seen the court decide that issue
.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1117_1bn5.pdf

This application of deadly force was in a populated area and compounded with other traffic on the road.

Just as we teach protective details that they must consider the presence of innocent bystanders and it is not a good idea to have a gunfight in a crowded hotel lobby, I suggest that shooting the driver of a moving vehicle - risks that vehicle going into the path of an innocent persons vehicle, or even into one of the business/houses along the way.

The innocent bystanders have a right not to be hurt and it is reasonably foreseeable that this could happen. Civil liability could attach. I am also suggesting that if an innocent were killed, manslaughter charges might result.

Just saying.
I certainly respect your opinion in these matters because as usual -- you are always spot on.

I do think that your post applies to multiple police shootings whether or not they involve a pursuit. I have worked multiple OIS's whereby LE have shot at moving cars and they have been exonerated both in the criminal and civil realm in situations much like this thread.

LEO's can only be taught concerning the applicability of the existing laws and hopefully learn them well enough that they are planted within their psyche and are able to be recalled in nanoseconds when making those decisions like the LEO had to make in this video.

I don't feel that his actions warrant him being fired though. Especially since I'm not involved, if that was to happen, I will leave that decision up to his department.

As always, thanks for the information, FKL.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:24
Maverick's Avatar
Maverick Maverick is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I think he did just fine with the exception of the decision to return fire that was essentially un-aimed, fired from a vehicle moving at high speed, in a densely populated area. Those rounds had virtually no chance of hitting the intended target. Just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean the default answer is shooting back. The shooting at the end I see no problem with at all. Kill those motherfuckers.


As it turned out, nobody was injured by his rounds. But, if just one of those rounds had struck and killed an innocent bystander, he goes from hero to zero in a millisecond. I'm not talking about departmental liability and all that shit. I'm talking about him having to live with that, forever.

He took a risk, and he got away with it. He is a hero in my book. But, it could have very easily been a disaster.

Another example of not criticizing him individually, but let's learn something from what happened in case you ever find yourself in a similar situation. Hell, I might have taken those shots too if it was me, in that moment, in all that chaos. I don't know. But I would just about guarantee you that right now, in hindsight, if you could ask him if he could do that over again if he would have fired those shots.....I'm betting he would say no, that was a mistake.
My thoughts exactly. I cringed when he opened fire right as the target vehicle was next to the U-Haul truck. At the end, it appears that he fires a stray round into the side of what was reported to be a school. Thankfully this incident ended without any injury to innocent bystanders, but I think there were a multitude of decisions that should've been made better. I fully understand that things get a little crazy when the rounds start flying, and I'm definitely a fan of his willingness to get in the fight. I just think there was a lot of good initiative, bad judgement here.
__________________
"Improving team morale, one compliment at a time."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:26
CPTAUSRET's Avatar
CPTAUSRET CPTAUSRET is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Iowa City, Iowa...
Posts: 9,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
My thoughts exactly. I cringed when he opened fire right as the target vehicle was next to the U-Haul truck. At the end, it appears that he fires a stray round into the side of what was reported to be a school. Thankfully this incident ended without any injury to innocent bystanders, but I think there were a multitude of decisions that should've been made better. I fully understand that things get a little crazy when the rounds start flying, and I'm definitely a fan of his willingness to get in the fight. I just think there was a lot of good initiative, bad judgement here.
Concur.
__________________
"IF THOU STRIKETH THE KING, STRIKE NOT TO WOUND":
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 18 July 2018, 13:26
Agoge Agoge is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
...I just think there was a lot of good initiative, bad judgement here.
Personally, I think that is the biggest takeaway from the entire event. It probably will - or at least should - be used for training in a lot of academies and In-Services.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 18 July 2018, 14:48
BigNickT BigNickT is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
He took a risk, and he got away with it. He is a hero in my book. But, it could have very easily been a disaster.
This.

The officer needs a pat on the back followed by an epic ass chewing.
__________________
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining

Pleasing everybody? Impossible. Pissing everybody off? Piece of cake.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 18 July 2018, 16:55
bobofthedesert's Avatar
bobofthedesert bobofthedesert is offline
RIP SOTB, Cass, Hognose
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Middle of the Mojave
Posts: 3,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agoge View Post
LEO's can only be taught concerning the applicability of the existing laws
They need to be taught that little factoid about a round being fired through the windshield from inside to out being 2 feet high @ 15 ft down range as well. Return fire against someone standing at reasonable distance in front of the vehicle, absolutely (rather try to get off the X myself but that might not be possible, right?) but from moving vehicle to moving vehicle at 50m? No bueno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agoge View Post
I don't feel that his actions warrant him being fired though. Especially since I'm not involved, if that was to happen, I will leave that decision up to his department.
That guy has no worries, I promise you. Metro has never fired an officer yet AFAIK. I mean at all. I might have missed one but it's certainly less that the fingers on one hand. They won't be firing "The Coward of the County" either.

This officer and others involved in the pursuit will be decorated with the Medal of Honor (yes, they are graceless enough to call it that) at one of Metro's periodic "aren't we great" ceremonies in the near future.
__________________
RIP Stevie D. 1964-2012
U.S. Army Veteran of OIF 2003
"Gone But Never Forgotten"

"In Flanders fields the poppies blow
between the crosses, row on row...."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 18 July 2018, 17:09
Front_Sight_Bang's Avatar
Front_Sight_Bang Front_Sight_Bang is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
Your post.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, with a caveat. The only problem that I had with the incident was the shots through the windshield for the reasons already mentioned, so I won't beat that dead horse. I agree with you on the windshield shots. Everything else I am good with. Pursuits are dangerous by nature, and I understand that there must be a fine line between what you chase and what you don't based on the circumstances. I think murder suspects actively firing on officers is something you absolutely continue to pursue. If that doesn't qualify to pursue then we shouldn't ever pursue anything, ever. I watched the video again, and in my opinion for what he was dealt, he did a great job with that part of it. I didn't see him get reckless or out of control, he communicated descriptions, direction of travel, relayed that he was being fired upon, warned the other unit of being too closely, kept a reasonable distance, etc.

Specifically regarding the shots through the windshield however, I would venture to say that a vast majority of officers (certainly the ones I know) have never actually fired a round through a windshield and are unaware of the angle or amount of deflection. I am lucky enough to have done so multiple times through SWAT, but most officers haven't done that. So as to whether his decision to do so should be grounds for de-certifying him and booting him out of LE, I would have a question. Does that fall on his shoulders, or the department's if he has never been trained on that issue and he was acting in good faith during a critical incident as seen under Graham?

Personally? I agree with BigNickT. Big atta boy for the incident as a whole.....now lets talk about that windshield thing. Not MMQB'ing him, but these incidents are absolutely GREAT training tools for LE as a whole and I think we would be remiss not to discuss them.
__________________
Shit aint funny....
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 18 July 2018, 17:27
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Front_Sight_Bang View Post
I would have a question. Does that fall on his shoulders, or the department's if he has never been trained on that issue and he was acting in good faith during a critical incident as seen under Graham?

.
My guess, it would fall on both. The Department has the deep pockets, and he risks both civil and potential criminal liability if things go wrong.

To be clear: The pursuit is clearly justified and legal. BTW, lots of decisions say that if the fleeing killers run over/hit someone, the blame falls on the fleeing person. Both of those Supreme Court decisions support continued pursuit. The problem as I saw it was very well summed up in this post

Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I think he did just fine with the exception of the decision to return fire that was essentially un-aimed, fired from a vehicle moving at high speed, in a densely populated area. Those rounds had virtually no chance of hitting the intended target. Just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean the default answer is shooting back. The shooting at the end I see no problem with at all. Kill those motherfuckers.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 18 July 2018, 17:28
ramzmedic's Avatar
ramzmedic ramzmedic is offline
I really don't care
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Hastings, MN
Posts: 1,482
He at least seemed to have enough forethought not to use his left hand to fire his weapon out the window, even though he considered it several times. Way too shakey.

I'm in the "buy him a beer" crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 18 July 2018, 17:32
Front_Sight_Bang's Avatar
Front_Sight_Bang Front_Sight_Bang is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I think he did just fine with the exception of the decision to return fire that was essentially un-aimed, fired from a vehicle moving at high speed, in a densely populated area. Those rounds had virtually no chance of hitting the intended target. Just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean the default answer is shooting back. The shooting at the end I see no problem with at all. Kill those motherfuckers.
I concur.
__________________
Shit aint funny....
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 18 July 2018, 20:19
nofear's Avatar
nofear nofear is offline
Proud wearer of a Beard.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia-based
Posts: 2,705
I wasn't there, and I'm not familiar with the backstory, or the Officer's training / experience / policy. As such, I will support his actions, as he got the job done.

That does not mean the incident should be shelved. Even successful incident management should be debriefed, and opportunities to improve should be explored, and all staff in the Dept should be exposed to these lessons.

From watching the video once, and based on my experience, I would have preferred to concentrate on stopping the vehicle first, (containing the incident), and then concentrate on neutralising the threat.

So if I was involved in the post-incident analysis, (which I'm not), I would want to explore policy and training for options to ram/PIT the vehicle first, and shoot second.

At the end of the day, kudos for getting the job done.
__________________
"Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unknown
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 20 July 2018, 04:10
256's Avatar
256 256 is offline
Navigating
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massgrunt View Post
That's exactly why. I had a wild fifteen minute chase yesterday, I know I was talking on the radio but I don't even remember how. The key to not having the chase shut down is to sound bored.
If "umm" comes before "I'm westbound on.." and "not that fast" comes next, fun is over..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polypro View Post
Reason #8,247 why I'd make a shitty cop I guess - I watched it and said "F'n A bud, nice job!" at the end
I'm a bad cop..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsniper View Post
When a bullet transits glass it puts a deflection angle on it. As you add distance, the angle stays the same, but by adding distance the deflection in inches/feet increases. When you shoot into a car the bullet only has to travel a couple of feet, so the deflection in inches/feet is very small due to the short travel distance. The same angle at 20' gets quite large.
We shot through a windshield that had such a drastic rake, rounds missed the target 5ft in front of the bumper. It's an eye opener the first time I saw it happen. Really glad to have gone to a class like that. It would be pretty scary not understanding why you couldn't get hits on a target 5 feet in front of your vehicle.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg VCQB.jpg (20.1 KB, 160 views)
__________________
Kiowas are small, carrying just two people; they fly so low the two flying soldiers are practically infantrymen.

- Excerpt from Gates of Fire, Michael Yon
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 20 July 2018, 13:23
MALSV MALSV is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chagrin Falls Ohio
Posts: 40
Never worked a car solo ... the thought alone gives me the meat sweats
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 20 July 2018, 13:45
Massgrunt's Avatar
Massgrunt Massgrunt is offline
Policeman Officer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Day shift.
Posts: 12,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 256 View Post
If "umm" comes before "I'm westbound on.." and "not that fast" comes next, fun is over...
Always give your speed when making a turn.
__________________
"The real problem was being able to stick it out, to sit in an office under the orders of a wee man in a dark gray suit and look out of the window and recall the bush country, the waving palms, the smell of sweat and cordite, the grunts of the men hauling jeeps over the river crossings, the copper-tasting fears just before the attack, and the wild, cruel joy of being alive afterward. To remember, and then go back to the ledgers and the commuter train, that was impossible. He knew he would eat his heart out if it ever came to that."

- "The Dogs of War" by Frederick Forsyth
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 26 July 2018, 23:10
CombatMedic1981's Avatar
CombatMedic1981 CombatMedic1981 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massgrunt View Post
That's exactly why. I had a wild fifteen minute chase yesterday, I know I was talking on the radio but I don't even remember how. The key to not having the chase shut down is to sound bored.
Aint that the truth. Some supervisors are so quick terminate.
__________________
"Just know that in the heart of your soul that you cannot quit. The pain of hard work and deprivation is soon forgotten. The pain of quitting stings forever. " - The Fat Guy
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 27 July 2018, 00:13
Massgrunt's Avatar
Massgrunt Massgrunt is offline
Policeman Officer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Day shift.
Posts: 12,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by CombatMedic1981 View Post
Aint that the truth. Some supervisors are so quick terminate.
Holy shit is it 2004 again?!?
__________________
"The real problem was being able to stick it out, to sit in an office under the orders of a wee man in a dark gray suit and look out of the window and recall the bush country, the waving palms, the smell of sweat and cordite, the grunts of the men hauling jeeps over the river crossings, the copper-tasting fears just before the attack, and the wild, cruel joy of being alive afterward. To remember, and then go back to the ledgers and the commuter train, that was impossible. He knew he would eat his heart out if it ever came to that."

- "The Dogs of War" by Frederick Forsyth
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 27 July 2018, 07:33
Believeraz's Avatar
Believeraz Believeraz is offline
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tilting at Windmills
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
To be clear: The pursuit is clearly justified and legal. BTW, lots of decisions say that if the fleeing killers run over/hit someone, the blame falls on the fleeing person. Both of those Supreme Court decisions support continued pursuit. The problem as I saw it was very well summed up in this post

Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I think he did just fine with the exception of the decision to return fire that was essentially un-aimed, fired from a vehicle moving at high speed, in a densely populated area. Those rounds had virtually no chance of hitting the intended target. Just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean the default answer is shooting back. The shooting at the end I see no problem with at all. Kill those motherfuckers.
To echo, no issues with the pursuit. No issues with the decision to use of deadly force. I have issues with the reckless way that deadly force was used. The officer fired 31 rounds into a neighborhood and never once impacted his target. That is somewhere between incredibly poor judgment and criminally negligent, depending on Nevada state law.

There are ways to shoot effectively from inside a car, including a moving car. Chances are he has not received that training. There may be a lack of training liability argument to be made ref. Canton v. Harris, but that will play out way down the road in civil court.

I firmly believe the officer did not know that he did not know how to properly fire from inside the vehicle and strike his target. He was under stress, and being shot at. He did a good job of keeping the pursuit together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 256 View Post
We shot through a windshield that had such a drastic rake, rounds missed the target 5ft in front of the bumper. It's an eye opener the first time I saw it happen. Really glad to have gone to a class like that.
I recognized that vehicle graffiti immediately! I was actually attending VCQB Instructor with Will when this shooting happened. We debriefed it as a class as soon as the video was released. Hands down the best vehicle-based gunfighting training I've ever done.

By the way, the suspect was killed by a Detective with a shotgun who was off-frame to the right at the pursuit termination. Neither suspect was so much as grazed by the pursuing officer's 31 rounds fired.
__________________
_________________

"Butch up, prom queen"
-Wench
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 27 July 2018, 07:49
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,571
A couple of questions popped out for me:
Do officers wear earpro full time?
Shooting inside of the vehicle seemed odd, and nothing I would ever consider. Is this taught?
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET 1996-2018