It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here We Go Again! Body cam footage Dallas PD shoot mentally ill man

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: XcathdraI'd just took the rounders bat off my would-be assailant, I took one blow on the forearm to get in close and wrest it from him. He then ran back in his house and got a knife. That didn't go as he'd planned, either.

Next question.



Yet in your story you started out with the bat.

edit on 18-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

I live in the UK, one of those quaint countries where they aren't over-reliant on firearms to solve societal problems..



and yet you have armed police....

Viewing this from a UK point of view is not going to translate all that well. I have the utmost respect for my cousins across the pond however the difference in laws and training are different and for good reason.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's entirely different. I'm not a cop and I'm not held to such professional standards. I'm also liable to prosecution if I kill a man and witnesses say I didn't need to as I had plenty of opportunity to avoid the scary man waving his knife about.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sometimes you need someone from the outside to point out stuff you are too close to to see the bigger picture more clearly. Or, you could get all hissy and say "Mind your own business!"2



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did I specify that? No, I didn't. I said I'd took a knife-wielding assailant out with it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IvanAstikov

Police are held to higher standards in the US than what civilians are. If a person is killed, whether it be by a civilian or a police officer, the cause of death is listed as a homicide. Whether it was justified or not comes with the investigation.

"Stabbing distance" in the US is 21 to 26 feet. that is based on an individual who is armed with a knife being able to cover the 21 to 26 feet and make it to the officer before an officer can draw his weapon and stop the threat.

Your scenarios and what you would are based on your perception, abilities and laws you are familiar with. The same holds for the officers involved in this situation.

trying to compare the officers actions to what you would have done, based on the legal differences, is not comparable.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sometimes you need someone from the outside to point out stuff you are too close to to see the bigger picture more clearly. Or, you could get all hissy and say "Mind your own business!"2


Which is why, when an officer kills someone, 3 separate investigations are held.
#1 - Internal Affairs - Agency involved - did the officer actions violate departmental procedure / guideline.
#2 - Criminal investigation - Outside agency does the criminal investigation.
#3 - Civil rights violation - FBI / FEDS - did the officers actions violate the suspect rights.

Court of law - Not a court of public opinion. Reviewing officer actions without an understanding of the laws involved does not work.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: PointDume

Law Enforcement does not have to be shot at, stabbed, attacked before they are allowed to defend themselves or others.



I'm definitely not suggesting that. They have to use their judgement on site. If the guy came off the porch in a threatening manner and I was in the officer's shoes, I probably would have used lethal force as well.



...however Monday morning quarterbacking on what the officer should have done is off base. People are not there and read about the incident after the fact. That usually includes information being provided to the reader that was not necessarily present / known to the officers at the time of the incident.


I know what I can see and hear from the video. And I've been in a very similar situation without the benefit of a firearm and with a lot of children in the near vicinity. They did not use their voice and physicality to effectively de-escalate that situation, an indisputable fact given that it escalated, and it is my opinion that they could have had better outcomes with different tactics. This isn't a condemnation of these particular officers; this is a broader point that I think we do not, as a society, place a sufficient emphasis on de-escalation strategies in law enforcement.

I speak from the point-of-view of someone with a legal and political background who has personally had to de-escalate a dangerous and volatile situation that was very similar to this situation (and was in fact more dangerous and complicated, presuming there is not any extenuating circumstances not seen in the video and heard in the audio).



The goal is a peaceful resolution to the situation


Agree.



the guy had a choice - drops the screwdrivers.


Agree. Once he chose not to do that and moved off the porch, he's probably getting shot and I'm not arguing with that decision. In the situation I was in, if the guy I was dealing with made any sudden movements in my direction, I would have responded with deadly force.

My point is that they didn't adopt the most effective posture and tactics at the beginning of the encounter. Their failure to de-escalate situations suggests a greater emphasis on training that focuses on de-escalation is important and something we should be discussing nationwide.

The alternative is more of the same.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did I specify that? No, I didn't. I said I'd took a knife-wielding assailant out with it.



As a matter of fact you did. You stated you hit him with a rounder's bat yet failed to note you took it from one of your attackers. You implied you started out with it before anything occurred.

see how quickly a situation can change based on your description of what occurred and how quickly that explanation can come under scrutiny? You got defensive when I pointed this out and tried to clarify it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: msallo

So you are suggesting to use the mother to try and deescalate the situation?

Let me ask - She couldn't handle the situation to begin with, which is why the police were called. Reintroducing her to the situation places her in danger.

why do that?



Not at all. Im saying once the officers recognized a limited range weapon they should have deescalated by taking a few steps back. The mother was already behind the officers so prompt her to come with. Create a buffer and go from there.

That should be protocol whenever a single perp has a limited range weapon and is no threat to anyone but himself.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




"Stabbing distance" in the US is 21 to 26 feet.


So, all your police defensive policies regarding knife-wielding assailants are based on one scenario where your dumbassed knife carrier announces he's going to stab you in time for you to get your gun out? That makes a lot of practical sense.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: msallo




Id take you up on that big cat.


How many people have you killed with a knife? I've defended myself against one with just a rounders bat and it worked out exactly as I described. Soon as they lunged forward, I smashed the bat on their forearm, they dropped the knife. I dared them to try and pick it up, the person got the # out of Dodge. I'd defo fancy my chances if you are dumb enough to let me see your knife first.



If the only way to win this argument is to tell war stories, then cool story bro.

All men arent created equal.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


You're just making # up here. I mentioned the aspect of the incident I'd had that was relevant to the topic. I only bothered describing the encounter in more detail when you expressed your doubts, as if anything I typed was going to make you accept my story any more.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: msallo
Yeah, right, because cops never sit around telling their war stories, do they, eh?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: PointDume

I'm definitely not suggesting that. They have to use their judgement on site. If the guy came off the porch in a threatening manner and I was in the officer's shoes, I probably would have used lethal force as well.


Fair enough.. Although I don't agree with the guy having to come off the porch in a threatening manner to use lethal force.

Let me ask - Who else is in the house? If the guy were to try and go back inside are those individuals in the residence in harms way? How would you respond to that action if you were the officer on scene?





originally posted by: PointDume
I know what I can see and hear from the video. And I've been in a very similar situation without the benefit of a firearm and with a lot of children in the near vicinity. They did not use their voice and physicality to effectively de-escalate that situation, an indisputable fact given that it escalated, and it is my opinion that they could have had better outcomes with different tactics. This isn't a condemnation of these particular officers; this is a broader point that I think we do not, as a society, place a sufficient emphasis on de-escalation strategies in law enforcement.


use of force / subject resistance control does NOT require an officer to start at the bottom and work their way up. Officer presence starts the moment an officer arrives on scene in a uniform / identified as police and in a marked patrol unit. The requirement is to use the least amount of force to end the situation. It also allows the officer to use force to overcome resistance.


In addition to the discussed you are not taking into account whats not discussed. Aside from my question about people being in the house, if this guy runs what are the odds of him making it to another house, individuals in the area who don't know whats going on, people driving by? They are all potential victims / hostages / etc. We don't just think about whats in front of us. we are required to mentally prepare for these what if scenarios.


The legal standard is what did the officer perceive as a threat the moment he used force.





originally posted by: PointDume
I speak from the point-of-view of someone with a legal and political background who has personally had to de-escalate a dangerous and volatile situation that was very similar to this situation (and was in fact more dangerous and complicated, presuming there is not any extenuating circumstances not seen in the video and heard in the audio).


I can respect that...

I speak from the position of a law enforcement officer who has worked in 2 states since 2001.




originally posted by: PointDume
Agree. Once he chose not to do that and moved off the porch, he's probably getting shot and I'm not arguing with that decision. In the situation I was in, if the guy I was dealing with made any sudden movements in my direction, I would have responded with deadly force.

My point is that they didn't adopt the most effective posture and tactics at the beginning of the encounter. Their failure to de-escalate situations suggests a greater emphasis on training that focuses on de-escalation is important and something we should be discussing nationwide.

The alternative is more of the same.


they arrived..
they identified themselves.
they told the guy to drop the items..
the guy refused..

At this point, you have a guy who is armed refusing your commands, which would lead to de-escalation of the situation. By refusing, the guy and not the officers escalated the situation.

when you have a person at gun point and are giving verbal commands, and that person refuses those commands, the mindset becomes this person is a serious threat. It telegraphs his mindset in that he has already made up his mind on what his actions are going to be and generally speaking, its not the outcome officers are wanting from him.

Ignoring that can result in fatalities.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: msallo

As I pointed out to another poster "knife" stabbing range is 21 to 26 feet. This guy was within that distance.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra




"Stabbing distance" in the US is 21 to 26 feet.


So, all your police defensive policies regarding knife-wielding assailants are based on one scenario where your dumbassed knife carrier announces he's going to stab you in time for you to get your gun out? That makes a lot of practical sense.


No its based on the dumbass knife carriers ability to close a 21 to 26 foot gap before an officer could draw his weapon and stop the threat. Its based on recognizing the fact its a deadly force encounter and by refusing law enforcement commands the intent is clear.

We don't go jon claude vandam like the British public when dealing with chavs and their knives.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
That must have been one quick draw police officer then. Or, did he already have his gun drawn, thus negating the whole "21 to 26ft" bollocks?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra


You're just making # up here. I mentioned the aspect of the incident I'd had that was relevant to the topic. I only bothered describing the encounter in more detail when you expressed your doubts, as if anything I typed was going to make you accept my story any more.


But its not relevant to the topic because you are acting as a civilian with absolutely no law enforcement requirements. You are dealing with a situation where the laws are nowhere close to being the same. You are dealing with a situation where you have no policies / procedure / guidelines you must abide by. You are dealing with a situation where your actions cannot violate another persons civil rights.

Your story is fine however you cannot compare apples to Zebras.

Trying to judge officer actions by using the social norm form another country just does not work.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




We don't go jon claude vandam like the British public when dealing with chavs and their knives.


Yes, and look how much respect and admiration that is garnering you, outside of those die-hard cop supporters who'd put up with any old crap to give them the illusion of safety.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join