Shooting until the threat is down: an example of modern training

[ARM505]

Warning: violence. It's not that I actively seek these clips out, but here is a clear example of what is often advocated - keep shooting until the threat is clearly no longer a threat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=525_1355434792

[DirkB]

Jo... I don't know about that one, would like to hear Ikor's take on this. I don't see how he was that big of a threat to the officer. If he (the officer) kept his distance, covering the suspect with his gun while ordering him to stand down and get on the ground the situation may have been diffused quickly. I don't know the background of the suspect but still, seems somewhat excessive to me.

[long range]

I dont understand how they could clear the officer from this , he kept shooting at list 4 of 5 rounds AFTER the suspect was on the ground ( 2 of the shoots when the suspect was with the back to the officer - one hit is clearly can be seeing the other one probably hit something else )

[Springer]

It certainly doesn't look good. But in fairness to the officer, it looks like the suspect was reaching back into his vehicle for something. The officer could well have been aware that the guy was armed. The guy was told clearly. "Do not move stay where you are or I WILL SHOOT YOU" - Sure he shot off a lot where maybe one or two would have been enough. But it's easy to comment sitting in a comfy chair with the luxury of a video clip. Being on the ground with a known (dangerous) felon who you are expecting shit from is an entirely different situation. Here on this forum, we have had people who have shot at percieved threats (like armed response personnel climbing over walls) and in that moment, you do what you feel you need to do to bring the neutralise the threat.

[krieger]

He was a La Eme.

He deserved what he got.

[ikor]

First, to set the background here, let us remember a critical difference between law officers and non-LE citizens. That is the fact that LE is charged with 'looking for trouble' as it were, and an officer / member is not legally expected, nor required, to always take every action possible to prevent a violent incident from occurring. In other words, the cop is not expected to walk away when violence is offered, even when he / she can.

Second, Manteca is a fairly small city (67,000 population more or less) and the felon shot in this case was well known to local officers. He had an extensive criminal history, was a gang member, and was out on parole at the time of the shooting. Further, they were looking for him that day as a suspect in a domestic disturbance in which he allegedly stuck a sword through a door screen. In the squad briefing, officers were given the info that he was to be considered armed and dangerous.

You can hear the officer call him by name in the video, and clearly tell him to drop the knife before any shots are fired. The officer fired 14 shots in the span of about 4 seconds...a time frame generally considered in many court decisions to be within the span of what some call 'hot blood' in such an incident. You will also note that the offender was still moving up until the last shot is fired...not like shooting two shots at a cardboard target and considering it 'neutralized'.

Here is a report on the District Attorney's findings from their investigation of that incident...

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/60931/

[ARM505]

Thanks for the background Ikor. I also thought it was excessive at first. Would love to know how it would pan out in SA, especially if it was filmed, and it got out (and given the races of the protagonists) - seems like the States is a lot further along the track when it comes to knowing how to deal with cases like this to me.

[long range]

Hi Ikor , the qustion i have (from not knowing much of the us law) , was the officer had to stop shooting when the "clear and present denger " to his well being was stoped? i.e. the suspect on the ground with no weapon in his hand ...

[ikor]

Hi Ikor , the qustion i have (from not knowing much of the us law) , was the officer had to stop shooting when the "clear and present denger " to his well being was stoped? i.e. the suspect on the ground with no weapon in his hand ...

Yes, but remember, he was not viewing the event as a flat, one dimensional event he was uninvolved in personally, as we can do in a video after the fact. He...and I would testify thusly as an expert witness...had seen a weapon and had no way of telling immediately that the suspect was not still a 'clear and present danger' to him since he was still moving and possibly trying his best to get up and renew the attack. I would maintain that he DID, in fact, stop as soon as he perceived the suspect was no longer a danger, but that his perceptions were coloured by the event that was happening to him while we are not effected by those things (tunnel vision, tunnel hearing, adrenlin rush, etc) when we watch the video.

This is why video, which many believe is the 'best evidence' cannot stand alone to tell the whole story of an event.

[long range]

Thank you