Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://ellegon.com/forum/

"Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14226		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  joelr [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/09/26 ... -rear.aspx
Author:  adjudicator [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Yep, it's ok as long as no one sees or hears. Feel free to move the body into the position needed and rearrange the crime scene as you see fit to corroborate your "story". :bang:
Author:  joelr [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Well, at least, in this one the guy a: didn't get killed, and b: should make quite a bit of money on the lawsuit.

As I suggested in my comment there, when the non-warrior-type instructors tell folks to avoid holding somebody at gunpoint, we do have reasons.
Author:  Pat Cannon [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Wow. Minus several points for Phoenix as a retirement destination.
Author:  Hunter07 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Wow! :shock: That sounds like a nightmare from hell.
Author:  Timothy Nelson [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Hopefully, he'll end up owning the department alongside a hefty amount of dollars.
Author:  Erik_Pakieser [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
joelr wrote:
As I suggested in my comment there, when the non-warrior-type instructors tell folks to avoid holding somebody at gunpoint, we do have reasons.


I teach students, when confronted with a surrendering subject, to say "GET OUT OF HERE, THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY" and then position themselves so the subject has a clear exit path away from them. I also teach them how to greet the police in a non-threatning manner.

In this particular case, the police didn't even see the homeowner's gun before they shot him, so I'm not convinced any of that would make a difference. Overall, a terrible mess.
Author:  joelr [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
It might not have made a difference if the police had been told that the robber was fleeing down the street rather than being held at gunpoint in the house, sure. But there's only so much one can do about Bad Cop Stuff, after all; if, upon being told that a robber is fleeing from a house, the cops enter the house and start shooting people, there's nothing much to be done about it.
Author:  chunkstyle [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Some people just shouldn't be trusted with guns.
Author:  Erik_Pakieser [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
About five years ago, I assisted with training an unnamed local SWAT team. Roleplaying in an active shooter scenario, I stood, unarmed, in one corner of a 10x10' room with my gun lying on a table in the opposite corner, well out of reach. As the officer entered, I put my hands up and yelled "Don't shoot, I give up!" he responded by shooting me in the belly with his M4.
Author:  jdege [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Erik_Pakieser wrote:
About five years ago, I assisted with training an unnamed local SWAT team. Roleplaying in an active shooter scenario, I stood, unarmed, in one corner of a 10x10' room with my gun lying on a table in the opposite corner, well out of reach. As the officer entered, I put my hands up and yelled "Don't shoot, I give up!" he responded by shooting me in the belly with his M4.

I have absolutely no problem with your scenario. In general, I'm in favor of training scenarios in which cops can screw up and shoot the wrong person.

The more cops who make this sort of mistake in training, where no one gets hurt, the fewer who are likely to make this sort of mistake on the street.
Author:  joelr [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Yeah, but did the evaluators decide it was a mistake?
Author:  JonL [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
joelr wrote:
Yeah, but did the evaluators decide it was a mistake?

At first take, flippant. Upon reflection... :?
8)
Author:  joelr [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
It wasn't just a cheap shot -- was the response from the trainer "Well, that's a flunk," or "Nice job -- you've gotta make sure you go home that night"? I'd like to think it was the first, but . . .
Author:  joelr [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
Erik_Pakieser wrote:
joelr wrote:
As I suggested in my comment there, when the non-warrior-type instructors tell folks to avoid holding somebody at gunpoint, we do have reasons.


I teach students, when confronted with a surrendering subject, to say "GET OUT OF HERE, THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY" and then position themselves so the subject has a clear exit path away from them. I also teach them how to greet the police in a non-threatning manner.

Good. Some of the warrior-type instructors spend a lot of time on subjects like How to Hold a Subject at Gunpoint, to the exclusion of Only a Moron Holds a Guy at Gunpoint if He Doesn't Have to, and Here's How Not to Do That Stupid Thing, which, in my considered opinion, is a far more useful skill (and an easier one) for civilian permit holders.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/