[CNN] Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

Take an officer from the Met or Paris Police Prefecture and put them in Detroit or Baltimore and we'll see how their methods work. What works with people from other cultures doesn't necessarily work within this culture.

 

I will agree that we probably need more information to see what gear he was carrying but if he had a tazer or something else on him that would qualify as a non-lethal alternative. While he is a detective he probably had been through police academy training and there are still situations where he would be required to apprehend suspects. I doubt just being a detective just means that he no longer has to worry about physical training.

If retreat is possible that could've been an option too but I think we would need to know more about the situation.

 

This is all speculative but we don't know how much time and distance he had on the suspect to make such decisions.

Now if he had time to consider his actions leading him to hesitate I'm thinking that a range of force options might've been possible. Consider even as a civilian most self-defense laws require consideration of a range of force options, such as I can't kill a guy if he slaps me.

But I agree having more information like a vid of the situation would help.

 

Just to add I agree that shooting at the legs is unrealistic. The legs, head and arms are difficult targets to hit even on a stationary target. Also consider that a gunshot is a traumatic injury and a shot to the legs could still be lethal from blood loss or shock to the body.

 

The guy will be quite angry after you taze him. What do you want to do then when he is alone? For personal defense it is a means to retreat. Probably an unneeded move no matter what less than lethal gear he had. Probably had plenty of previous chances to retreat and apprehend later with more guys.

Police are required to pass one preemployment physical fitness test. They are the fattest profession. Expecting them to not only win fights but do so in such a manner to completely subdue someone is not realistic.

 

There is an appropriate level of force to use, yes. But when a gun is used, police officers are trained to aim for the chest.

When they practice at the range, they aren't aiming at legs and arms. They're practicing shooting paper torsos.

 

It is not unrealistic in every situation, that is the go to response for every unarmed police shooting in America. There have been plenty of situations where cops have shot people in the leg. They are usually unarmed. Yes you are trained to shoot center mass but you are only trained to shoot when necessary. It was not necessary to shoot him and certainly not 6 times. Shooting him six times means Wilson did not think about stopping at least after the 4th shot. Realistically in the Darren Wilson case Darren Wilson did not give him enough time to stop walking toward him. He shot continuously without checking to see if the guy with no weapon has been sufficiently injured to be subdued. It was excessive. Which why I said it is a matter of proper training in the U.S.

 

Police have shot people in the leg but they don't aim for the leg.

And just because he shot him 6 times doesn't mean it's excessive. You weren't there and don't know exactly how it happened in that moment.

It's not as if he was shooting him after he fell to the ground.

 

Which is why everyone is saying your understanding of training and firearms is severely lacking. If you have a problem with him shooting that is the end of it. There is no more criticism needed. 6 times 1 time head or leg. Those are all variables that happen after the deadly force decision is made.

Every fight cops get into is a gun fight because these cops have guns. Cops will never perform to your unrealistic expectations. What percentage of cops do you think are even capable of performing a few pullups? You want them all to be IDPA champions.

 

Tazers are not designed to annoy but to incapacitate. I would presume the LEO would at least have the sense to take the guy into custody, call for backup and / or retreat to a further distance once the suspect is tazed.

In terms of pepper spray which is far less incapacitating than a tazer all he needs to do is slow the suspect down allowing for retreat.

You're probably right and is one of the problems with LE. I've trained with LE in martial arts who are very serious about improving their hand to hand skills so they don't need to rely on guns but my understanding is many of them are doing so on their own initiative.

 

Yes I fully understand this, yes you are trained center mass, regardless of that I found out fairly quickly that I am a great head shooter. I'm saying what people are told about not being able to wound is bull. It is not true that you can never shoot to wound and I only believe you should try if the person is unarmed. In these unarmed situations a gun is not needed in the first place.

 

It is just an unrealistic expectation not really a problem. If it was a problem then what about females, or partially disabled, or older cops. Get them on camera, get a goon squad to get them later.

 

Do you realize that police officers carry a gun on their person? If someone is attacking them, even if they are unarmed, the police officer's gun is up for grabs. They can very easily go from being unarmed to armed.

That's why these situations are very dangerous.

Take the police officer in the story this thread is about for example. He was beaten unconscious with his own gun. The guy with his gun could have very easily killed him with the gun if he wanted to. Just because he didn't doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have in the same situation.

 

It's only unrealistic because they are not properly trained. I understand that it is easier to hit the biggest part of someone's body but to not even try when you know the person is unarmed is ridiculous. If the person has a weapon or a hostage fine shoot him in the head all you want. But an unarmed suspect does not need to be taken down in such a manner and that is the big problem in America right now. The only way an unarmed suspect should be taken down in that manner is if you get into a physical altercation and they guy is both bigger and stronger than you. You use what is necessary.

 

If we are exploring hypothetical situations what would have happened if the cop in this story had no gun? He certainly wouldn't have been beaten or shot with it right?

 

All that "considering" could happen in a flash. It might have been in the back of his mind. Guy moves towards you aggressively, you draw your gun, but hesitate for just one split second and that other fellow could knock the gun out of your hand. It is conceivable that happened. Likely? I am skeptical. But yeah, there's just a lack of information here and we are just speculating.

No one should really be jumping on this either way. This is just a situation where we don't know enough to pass any kind of judgment and doing so is reckless at best.

 

I have seen people walk right through being tazed, they just tear out the leads. If you go for the taser and it doesn't work you are not going to have time to try something else. I don't know what people have seen or heard to imagine these situations where the cop can be talking to a suspect and then have time to use a taser and/or pepper spray and then also have time if that doesn't work to try something else. Fortunately the law correctly doesn't require such acts of idiocy from law enforcement. If a cop is being attacked by a suspect he is supposed to shoot and keep shooting until the threat is ended. That doesn't mean shoot, pause, see what the suspect is going to do, shoot, pause, see what the suspect is going to do now, etc. It means suspect is coming at cop, cop shoots until suspect is no longer coming at cop.

 

Just to clarify I was talking about when there is a distance between the officer and so called assailant. I'm not talking about if the guy is already on you (Which you shouldn't let them get that close in the first place), you have the right to shoot him however you see fit. If someone is walking toward you and is at a distance you don't have to shoot them in the face to stop them.

 

Let me tell you why I support cops most of the time. My uncle is a cop right outside of New Orleans. He's been a cop for 20-something years. He's only shot his gun 3 times that I'm aware of in the 20-something years he's been a police officer.

He's a good guy with a family... a wife and 2 kids. If something ever happened to him we'd be devastated. He's a good guy and he's family.

Here is a story he was involved in from last summer:


There were two guys who robbed a local convenience store of cash and cigarettes with semi-automatic pistols to support their cocaine habit. Here is a picture from the security camera:




They had 2 others waiting in the getaway car.

About a minute after the police dispatcher announced the robbery on the radio, one officer spotted the car with no headlights on in a neighborhood. They fled.

My uncle joined the pursuit, which reached speeds of well over 100 mph.

They went up on the curb, and the suspects blew out a tire. The driver jumped out and started running towards the officers.

My uncle said he saw something black in his hand and he shot at him 3 times, striking him once in the leg.

The other police officer on the scene with my uncle said he was prepared to shoot too, but my uncle was in his line of fire and so he couldn't shoot.

Then, another guy jumped out of the car and pointed a pistol at the police officers. My uncle shot five more rounds and he hit the suspect in the torso.




Guess what the driver who jumped out first said?


He said he jumped out of the car with his hands up and the police just started shooting.

My uncle has only fired his gun 3 times in 20-something years... he doesn't just come out guns-blazing looking to shoot people.

One of them pled guilty and said he was the guy carrying the pistol on the camera footage. Then in front of a jury he denied that was him.

These people are liars and have long criminal records.



It would have been tragic if my uncle had been killed by these low-lives. Police deal with people like this every day, and there is no room for hesitation.

Here are the criminals:







They look like model citizens.

 

If they had no gun, they are targets for criminals with weapons.

And even if he didn't have a gun doesn't mean he couldn't be killed. If someone lands a hard punch and knocks him unconscious, he's now vulnerable to whatever. The criminal could hop in the car and run him over.