Jump to content


The George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests and police conduct


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

A lot of that is not relevant. Police aren't supposed to shoot people because they get upset or pissed off or scared. Part of their job is to not let it affect them. No one is claiming it's not tough. The requirement here if you are a police officer is that you control your emotions enough to not shoot someone unless absolutely necessary. 3 police officers should be trained well enough to be able to take down 1 person with a knife (which he did not even have on him) without shooting the person. Or, you know, try shooting him in the leg.

Why are you assuming he's not supposed to have the kids? You don't think the police would have stated that already to try to make themselves look better?

Eh, I get what you're saying in that first part, but "in fear of my life or another's life" is absolutely being "scared". Not trying to justify or not justify what happened just clarifying is all. 

 

Also officers are not trained to shoot at legs or arms or whatever. They are taught to shoot center mass for several reasons to stop the threat. There are scientific reasons behind that based on how the human body responds to a critical incident. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Eh, I get what you're saying in that first part, but "in fear of my life or another's life" is absolutely being "scared". Not trying to justify or not justify what happened just clarifying is all. 

 

Also officers are not trained to shoot at legs or arms or whatever. They are taught to shoot center mass for several reasons to stop the threat. There are scientific reasons behind that based on how the human body responds to a critical incident. 

Thanks for the context.

 

One thing I don't understand is if the cops thought he had a knife, then why did the one who shot him in the back approach him? Seems ridiculous to close the distance when you have a gun and someone else has a knife.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Eh, I get what you're saying in that first part, but "in fear of my life or another's life" is absolutely being "scared". Not trying to justify or not justify what happened just clarifying is all. 

 

Also officers are not trained to shoot at legs or arms or whatever. They are taught to shoot center mass for several reasons to stop the threat. There are scientific reasons behind that based on how the human body responds to a critical incident. 

Are you guys taught much in the way of hand to hand "combat" and take downs? It seems like that would have been an all around better option if he didn't have the knife actually on him.

 

Clearly there's a big difference here in the amount of force that is reasonable compare to the Floyd case.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

One of them fought with 3 cops, got tazed, and was still trying to get away. The other went towards cops with his hands up to surrender. Now which one?

 

One had a visible weapon in the presence of a shooting.

 

The other had no visible weapon on a disturbance call.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Thanks for the context.

 

One thing I don't understand is if the cops thought he had a knife, then why did the one who shot him in the back approach him? Seems ridiculous to close the distance when you have a gun and someone else has a knife.

I agree with you on them closing distance as it makes no sense from an officer safety standpoint. We are taught the 21 foot rule in the academy and through our training. That states if a suspect is standing 21 feet away from you with a knife and your weapon is holstered they can get to you and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and fire one shot. So distance is your friend with a suspect with a knife. Obviously that can change if the suspect starts moving towards and innocent bystander or something. That's my guess at what the officer will try and say in this situation in some form or another. However the courts aren't real happy with Officers "creating a deadly force situation" through their actions so time will tell on this one. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Are you guys taught much in the way of hand to hand "combat" and take downs? It seems like that would have been an all around better option if he didn't have the knife actually on him.

 

Clearly there's a big difference here in the amount of force that is reasonable compare to the Floyd case.

Good question and it varies from department to department unfortunately. I'd say as a whole officers aren't taught defensive tactics at a level they should be unless they decide to do some training on their own. For example in Iowa their is no mandate for defensive tactics to be completed X number of times per year. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Eh, I get what you're saying in that first part, but "in fear of my life or another's life" is absolutely being "scared". Not trying to justify or not justify what happened just clarifying is all. 

 

Also officers are not trained to shoot at legs or arms or whatever. They are taught to shoot center mass for several reasons to stop the threat. There are scientific reasons behind that based on how the human body responds to a critical incident. 

 


Gotcha.

There just has to be a better way though. This will never get eliminated completely of course because humans are humans. But there has to be a way for 3 police officers to stop a guy who claims he has a knife. Whether it's policy or training or whatever. And I'm sure Democrats have a lot of bad ideas but I wish the Republicans would stop hindering change.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 


Gotcha.

There just has to be a better way though. This will never get eliminated completely of course because humans are humans. But there has to be a way for 3 police officers to stop a guy who claims he has a knife. Whether it's policy or training or whatever. And I'm sure Democrats have a lot of bad ideas but I wish the Republicans would stop hindering change.

I agree there has to be a better way and I think collectively as a whole we all want that. I just want to protect my community the best way that I can and if that gets me better training in the long run and everyone is safer that's a win/win. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Good question and it varies from department to department unfortunately. I'd say as a whole officers aren't taught defensive tactics at a level they should be unless they decide to do some training on their own. For example in Iowa their is no mandate for defensive tactics to be completed X number of times per year. 

Is that something personally you would be in favor of implementing. If one of the candidates made it mandatory that officers receive defensive training annually or biannually?

 

Thanks for contributing to this by the way. Your profession is a much meeded part of this discussion, otherwise we will get no where.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Is that something personally you would be in favor of implementing. If one of the candidates made it mandatory that officers receive defensive training annually or biannually?

 

Thanks for contributing to this by the way. Your profession is a much meeded part of this discussion, otherwise we will get no where.

I'd be all for it and I think you'd see A LOT of law enforcement trainers be all for it! There's only so much time in the year unfortunately so balancing all of the different training could become challenging for some departments based on staffing. Also you'd have to take into consideration how to handle the older officers of the profession because their bodies are pretty beat up from a 30 year career. I've been doing this 20 years and 20 years of a duty belt and gear has done a number on my lower back and hips that's for sure. lol 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

17 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

A lot of that is not relevant. Police aren't supposed to shoot people because they get upset or pissed off or scared. Part of their job is to not let it affect them. No one is claiming it's not tough. The requirement here if you are a police officer is that you control your emotions enough to not shoot someone unless absolutely necessary. 3 police officers should be trained well enough to be able to take down 1 person with a knife (which he did not even have on him) without shooting the person. Or, you know, try shooting him in the leg.

Why are you assuming he's not supposed to have the kids? You don't think the police would have stated that already to try to make themselves look better?

Where did I say they shot him because they were scared or pissed off?

Link to comment
16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Thanks for the context.

 

One thing I don't understand is if the cops thought he had a knife, then why did the one who shot him in the back approach him? Seems ridiculous to close the distance when you have a gun and someone else has a knife.

He tried to stop him from getting in the car with the kids. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

I'd be all for it and I think you'd see A LOT of law enforcement trainers be all for it! There's only so much time in the year unfortunately so balancing all of the different training could become challenging for some departments based on staffing. Also you'd have to take into consideration how to handle the older officers of the profession because their bodies are pretty beat up from a 30 year career. I've been doing this 20 years and 20 years of a duty belt and gear has done a number on my lower back and hips that's for sure. lol 

 

Did your department ever try to implement any of the reforms from Obama's policing task force? Seems like it was kind of ad hoc which departments did and didn't try to use that.

 

I started watching "The Game Changers" documentary on Netflix not that long ago and the beginning showed an ex-MMA fighter giving combat instruction to military members. Jiu-jitsu and that type of thing. I would think those techniques would be of tremendous benefit as an alternative to firearms for those who are fit enough to use them.

 

Speaking for myself personally, it's frustrating to go from one president who tried to reform policing and caught a lot of heat for it to another who as recently as yesterday was joking about how it's not politically correct for police to beat protestors for no reason - and gets lots of support from police.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where did I say they shot him because they were scared or pissed off?

 

 

I’m saying it. I say the guy who did the shooting didn’t control his emotions and that’s where what happened before the shooting came into play (when it shouldn’t) and police have to be better than someone in a bar fight. Maybe if they had hand to hand combat training they would have felt more confident or known where to stand and he would not have gotten in a situation where he freaked out. I just don’t think what happened before matters that much. And maybe it should have affected him the opposite way. Guy claims he has a knife - don’t get so close to him if you don’t know how to take him down without shooting. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Did your department ever try to implement any of the reforms from Obama's policing task force? Seems like it was kind of ad hoc which departments did and didn't try to use that.

 

I started watching "The Game Changers" documentary on Netflix not that long ago and the beginning showed an ex-MMA fighter giving combat instruction to military members. Jiu-jitsu and that type of thing. I would think those techniques would be of tremendous benefit as an alternative to firearms for those who are fit enough to use them.

 

Speaking for myself personally, it's frustrating to go from one president who tried to reform policing and caught a lot of heat for it to another who as recently as yesterday was joking about how it's not politically correct for police to beat protestors for no reason - and gets lots of support from police.

Our department already did biased based policing training, mental health training, etc. before President Obama asked police across the country to do. We also received several grants through the COPS now grant process and we received those grants based on what we did in community policing and what we planned to do in community policing. We received funds to hire more officers with the understanding that we would expand our community policing once we received those funds. Which we've done and we have a large amount of community support in our community. 

 

Law enforcement as a whole is, generally speaking, a Republican leaning occupation similar to the military. That's due to several reasons, but that's why you'll see support from President Trump. I personally haven't met an officer that has supported his games though so there's a divide there. I did not personally hear those comments from him, but that's because I basically have shut the news off for months now and don't want to listen to the man speak either. lol 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...