"Black Lives Matter" Activist undergoes use of force scenarios with police

EGarrett said:
I agree with this.

You can absolutely set-up scenarios where cops get killed without any recourse, AND where they kill innocent people. The same is true of non-cops too. If someone has a modicum of intelligence and really wants to shoot you, you're going to get shot.

Having said that, I think the Michael Brown shooting was Brown's own fault since he apparently did physically attack an officer, for the same reasons.

However, there are other scenarios where police have physical control of someone, the person is restrained or has been patted down, and the cops use excessive force on them due to either adrenaline or machismo. This is what happened to Eric Garner. Strangleholds are banned in arresting procedures for exactly that reason. The officer is full of adrenaline and has no idea if he should let go or not. That incident was the fault of the arresting officer.

Similarly, if you're NOT an officer at all, you need to be aware of your own behavior and whether it's threatening someone else. This is what happened in the Trayvon Martin situation. The profiling in that case, and the "thug-based" character assassination that followed, is where the "race divide" creeps in.

Having said that, I like to know when the police kill unarmed people of all colors, to be able to follow how many incidents there are and really weight how much race seems to effect it (for example, if Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner had been doing the same things and were white girls, I doubt they'd be dead). Likewise, I'd like to see how many police are actually abruptly murdered by people in the manner they show in the "training scenario," such as what happened to the two New York cops, in order to see how likely that occurs also. Those would be important to know for both the public and the cops when deciding whether to use weapons in a situation, and what weapons to use.
Click to expand...

Good post overall. Just a couple of points I wanted to address. I will color code them.

For sure, I think the first scenario would kill most cops doing the same scenario. It's almost a no-win scenario. But I think the point was to show that if you wait for the weapon to appear, you're too late. There's another thread about the shooting suspect(and meth head) who the cop shot for reaching into his waistband after the cop told him repeatedly to keep his hands up. People think he should have waited for the suspect to produce a weapon before the officer shot, but somehow they find this scenario unrealistic because it kills the officer quicker than he can react. But that's the point, and it's hardly unrealistic.

The first scenario is not exactly the same as what happened to the 2 NYPD officers. Those two NYPD officers died while sitting in their car, probably just eating lunch or taking a break or whatever. That was just straight up, pre-meditated murder.

What occurred in the first training scenario was slightly different. The suspect was being approached by a cop while attempting to commit a crime. In this scenario, the suspect knows that the cop is going to investigate him. If he has a warrant out for his arrest, it's common that the criminal will attempt to escape, and if he feels he can't escape, it's not unheard of for the criminal to attempt to ambush the officer. How often does it happen? I'm not sure. But it happens often enough. I read an article like that at least a couple times per month. In fact I posted a video of one from last week on page 3 of this thread. But cops wear body armor, so although they will get shot , they often survive.
 
Last edited:
Phelly2 said:
Good post overall. Just a couple of points I wanted to address. I will color code them.

For sure, I think the first scenario would kill most cops doing the same scenario. It's almost a no-win scenario. But I think the point was to show that if you wait for the weapon to appear, you're too late. There's another thread about the shooting suspect(and meth head) who the cop shot for reaching into his waistband after the cop told him repeatedly to keep his hands up. People think he should have waited for the suspect to produce a weapon before the officer shot, but somehow they find this scenario unrealistic because it kills the officer quicker than he can react. But that's the point, and it's hardly unrealistic.

The first scenario is not exactly the same as what happened to the 2 NYPD officers. Those two NYPD officers died while sitting in their car, probably just eating lunch or taking a break or whatever. That was just straight up, pre-meditated murder.

What occurred in the first training scenario was slightly different. The suspect was being approached by a cop while attempting to commit a crime. In this scenario, the suspect knows that the cop is going to investigate him. If he has a warrant out for his arrest, it's common that the criminal will attempt to escape, and if he feels he can't escape, it's not unheard of for the criminal to attempt to ambush the officer. How often does it happen? I'm not sure. But it happens often enough. I read an article like that at least a couple times per month. In fact I posted a video of one from last week on page 3 of this thread. But cops wear body armor, so although they will get shot , they often survive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the situations with the murdering of the two cops and the first scenario in the video are different. But I would lump them together just as cases where police are abruptly murdered (or someone attempts to murder them), so I can see how often it happens and consider that when judging how "jumpy" a police officer should be with his gun.

I didn't know that police wore body armor, I thought they only did in specialized situations, and I would've suggested that giving them body armor would make them overall less likely to pull their guns since it's harder for them to be "flash killed." If they already have body armor, I would put the onus more on them to be patient.

Of course, these are very frustrating situations. Especially the Eric Garner case. The people who attack the cops and get killed already pay the ultimate price, but I think the officer who strangled Garner also should suffer something serious. No man's death is a minor incident or simple "glitch" in procedure.
 
EGarrett said:
Yeah, the situations with the murdering of the two cops and the first scenario in the video are different. But I would lump them together just as cases where police are abruptly murdered (or someone attempts to murder them), so I can see how often it happens and consider that when judging how "jumpy" a police officer should be with his gun.

I didn't know that police wore body armor, I thought they only did in specialized situations, and I would've suggested that giving them body armor would make them overall less likely to pull their guns since it's harder for them to be "flash killed." If they already have body armor, I would put the onus more on them to be patient.

Of course, these are very frustrating situations. Especially the Eric Garner case. The people who attack the cops and get killed already pay the ultimate price, but I think the officer who strangled Garner also should suffer something serious. No man's death is a minor incident or simple "glitch" in procedure.
Click to expand...

On the body armor point, it does save lives, but it doesn't do a perfect job.

Being shot in the body armor is still going to break bones and possibly kill, depending on where it hits. It only protects the chest area, so being shot in the lower abdomen, the neck, the head, the femoral artery, those are all potentially kill shots. Or if you are shot from the side, it will penetrate through the arm hole area.

It might save your life, but it's still going to knock you down and possibly out of the fight. Even if I wear armor, I sure as hell am not going to think I'm bullet proof. I'm not more willing to get shot just because I have body armor.
 
Phelly2 said:
Body armor or not, do you want to be this guy?

[YT]watch?v=Tl1yUNdoUcA[/YT]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trooper-survived-by-grace-of-god/
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely, if you're standing point blank and someone unloads a whole clip into you or shoots you in the head, you're still dying.

But in other situations, if you're a decent distance away, I think there's a huge difference between "this guy could draw on me and put a bullet in my heart any second" and "this guy could draw on me and break a few of my ribs before he either runs away or I shoot back."

Neither is desirable, but I think it makes a significant difference in someone's decision-making...and it's definitely better for the police and their families to have to worry that bit less, and for the people they're questioning to also not have to worry as much about the officer misinterpreting something and gunning them down.
 
EGarrett said:
but I think the officer who strangled Garner also should suffer something serious. No man's death is a minor incident or simple "glitch" in procedure.
Click to expand...

No officer strangled anybody. He used a LEGAL choke hold and then released it. They should have gotten in trouble for leaving him on his stomach like that though.
 
EGarrett said:
Yes, definitely, if you're standing point blank and someone unloads a whole clip into you or shoots you in the head, you're still dying.

But in other situations, if you're a decent distance away, I think there's a huge difference between "this guy could draw on me and put a bullet in my heart any second" and "this guy could draw on me and break a few of my ribs before he either runs away or I shoot back."

Neither is desirable, but I think it makes a significant difference in someone's decision-making...and it's definitely better for the police and their families to have to worry that bit less, and for the people they're questioning to also not have to worry as much about the officer misinterpreting something and gunning them down.
Click to expand...

Well you clearly have much bigger balls than I.

While I would much rather be wearing a vest in a gun fight, I'm going to treat bullets the same whether I'm wearing one or not. I don't know where that bullet is going to land, and I don't know if that bullet is armor piercing or if it's a larger caliber than my vest is rated for. I'm not putting my life into the hands of someone who wants to kill me.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to be shooting people all willy-nilly. But if I feel like I'm about to get shot, I'm going to take action. I'm not going to think to myself, "what's the worst that can happen? A broken sternum? No big deal!"
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
No officer strangled anybody. He used a LEGAL choke hold and then released it. They should have gotten in trouble for leaving him on his stomach like that though.
Click to expand...

Well according to the officer, he didn't apply pressure to the neck at all. He just used a "headlock" type action to take Garner down.

It was hard to read the facts on that point, however, because the medical examiner cited neck compression as a cause of death, while at the same time saying that there was no damage to the trachea(windpipe).

Plus we've already been over that like a million times so I didn't want to argue that point.
 
The first situation is the guy using the suv for cover to pull the weapon not having the weapon hid behind the suv, which is based on real situations. People will try to get the advantage to get to their weapon and that is one way it has been done.

Personally I would have stepped back toward the front of the suv for cover and readied my weapon having been throughout similar training but that's just me.
 
This video is about as much garbage as black lives matter.
 
oldshadow said:
So what's garbage about it?
Click to expand...

Not only does he not have any training at all he lacks just about every tool that would be otherwise available, well apart from the gun. He is set up to "fail" and it is very obvious.
 
Phelly2 said:
Well you clearly have much bigger balls than I.

While I would much rather be wearing a vest in a gun fight, I'm going to treat bullets the same whether I'm wearing one or not. I don't know where that bullet is going to land, and I don't know if that bullet is armor piercing or if it's a larger caliber than my vest is rated for. I'm not putting my life into the hands of someone who wants to kill me.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to be shooting people all willy-nilly. But if I feel like I'm about to get shot, I'm going to take action. I'm not going to think to myself, "what's the worst that can happen? A broken sternum? No big deal!"
Click to expand...
No big balls here. We agree that they're not going not to stop someone who is determined to kill a cop. My main concern is the situations where the cops kill an innocent person or a situation ends up chaotic with someone who decides on the spur of the moment to start shooting. In both of those, some protection against small arms fire, and increased peace of mind for the police officer, would probably reduce the likelihood of a fatal mistake.
 
Videer said:
Not only does he not have any training at all he lacks just about every tool that would be otherwise available, well apart from the gun. He is set up to "fail" and it is very obvious.
Click to expand...

set up to fail? it's a controlled environment, he really wouldn't have been pummeled by the giant yet somehow it still remained a very effective training exercise.
 
Videer said:
Not only does he not have any training at all he lacks just about every tool that would be otherwise available, well apart from the gun. He is set up to "fail" and it is very obvious.
Click to expand...

True he lacks training and that showed in his and the reporters reactions.

As far as tools not every cop carries a tazer and if he had one which situations would you have used it in and when?

As far as pepper spray and cs they are of very little use unless the person is cuffed.
 
second sight said:
set up to fail? it's a controlled environment, he really wouldn't have been pummeled by the giant yet somehow it still remained a very effective training exercise.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a very effective training exercise if the result you want is for him to shoot. Or he could have gone all *brrrrzz* yo tased bro!
 
Videer said:
Yes it is a very effective training exercise if the result you want is for him to shoot. Or he could have gone all *brrrrzz* yo tased bro!
Click to expand...

There was only one situation that a tazer could have been used but like I said not all cops have them.
 
Videer said:
Yes it is a very effective training exercise if the result you want is for him to shoot. Or he could have gone all *brrrrzz* yo tased bro!
Click to expand...

your argument is better suited for the activist, you know the guy that would have agreed with you before he volunteered to do the training where he shot the guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,092
Messages
55,467,272
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top