Los Angeles Police Commission Tells Officers To Run Away from Armed Suspects

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And so it begins. . . . .

Cowboy, have you been listening to Glenn Beck again???

He's nuts.

But I've been saying that cops should just leave. Don't bother.

If they end up in a justified shoot, they'll still get riots.

a reply to: Profusion

Au contraire.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The commission doesn't know it's own laws.

California Penal Code Section 835a


835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.


A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

Source

These Commissioners recommendations are political crap coming from scared politicians over them who like to do the only thing they ever like to do, run for reelections.

The official blog of the police agency in question is a very official source for the statements and findings of the Police Comission relevant to the topic. So the finding faulted the officer for failing to re-deploy so that he could "maintain a tactical advantage. Well, I say he had the tactical advantage as the aggressor is now dead after proceeding 70 feet to make the attack. Therefore, there was no need to re-deploy, as the advantage clearly was set and fulfilled as per protocol.

After all, there is no point to an advantage if you are not going to address the threat on your life from a hostile party. I see this being challenged successfully in a hearing or court or whatever he needs to do to prevent any penalty to his career or retirement.

Uhhh, yea, I would put distance between me and a knife too.

No brain required.

Spin much?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Profusion

Au contraire.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the first reply of this thread you wrote, "I would recommend seeking the original source." You were not even implying that I should share it with you or anyone else.

Is the official blog of the Los Angeles Police Protective League a good enough source for you?

Run away. If a police officer is confronted by a suspect with a weapon, those entrusted to set policies for the Police Department believe officers should run away. That’s the recent finding from the Los Angeles Police Commission which has turned Monday morning quarterbacking into a weekly agenda item at the three-ring circus they preside over every Tuesday morning.
Source

That's how they did it in mexico until the cartels ran the show...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Shoot em all and let God sort em out.
You have a gun and point it at police you die.

or not point it at police you die too.

i wonder how unarmed police abroad tackle knife wielding purps... presumably every LEO abroad dont die when they face a knife wielding mentalist ...

but yea, what are they thinking in suggesting using tactics other than killing in America. it just doesnt seem to make sense to most. other options besides killing... imagine that.

a reply to: Khaleesi
No. Google Gonzales vs. Castle Rock. The police have no obligation to protect an individual.

a reply to: Profusion

What would you do if you were in their shoes?

Fake an injury and get reassigned to a desk job... permanently.

To hell with "protect and serve" at that point.

I think it is a good idea insofar as the cops shooting someone dead doesn't always have to be the outcome of an encounter with an armed suspect. Of course I am talking about knives not guns. Here in the UK police tackle such encounters regularly without the need to kill someone. The problem in the US is really the price paid for having an armed populace and it has become a sort of default position to shoot first.

so a woman is running toward an officer with an 9 inch knife, does any officer have a baton to knock it out of her hand?...does any officer have a taser?....does any officer receive hand to hand combat training, before going on the street?.....I find this a bunch of bunk, I know a female mental health worker who has disarmed all kinds of patients that were holding weapons of some kind, and she is 130 pounds, 5'5"....was completely unarmed, wearing NO protective gear.

maybe we can send her to police training facilities to show these sissy cops how to do it.....

a reply to: jimmyx

When an armed attacker charges you with a blade that could easily spill your innards onto the ground in mere seconds, I vote for eliminating the threat immediately. The aggressor made the conscious choice of their own free will to commit a violent crime against a Law Enforcement Officer. If the UK police were armed more often, maybe the mischievous thugs who constantly like to stir random trouble over there would have more respect for the officers and citizens they antagonize.

I am against police brutality, but there is no reason an officer, or any human being for that matter should not have the right to defend themselves against a violent adult making their own poor choices to attack someone with a weapon.

Live by the sword, die by the gun.

a reply to: worldstarcountry
A taser is a better option. You really think a lethal option is the only way to handle a threatening suspect? You know a lot of unarmed people die in police encounters. It needs to be reigned in.

Far as I know there're still a lot of police who do not have tasers and only have guns to deal with these situations. Hence, a lot of people die.

Googled this:
www.chicagotribune.com - Kadner: Only 1 in 5 Chicago cops certified to use Tasers ...

In the case of Terence Crucher--occured recently--he was shot by officer Betty Shelby and tasered by Tyler Turnbough. I don't know if he was tasered before he was shot, but I wonder if Shelby didn't have a taser?

EDIt: Ok it turns out officer Shelby had a taser, but pulled out a gun because she thought Terence might have a gun in his pocket--he kept reaching for his pocket and ignoring her orders. Later, she thought he might be reaching for a gun in the vehicle. That's when she fired. Obviously the distance between "might have a gun" and "gun" needs to be examined. It should not be used as an excuse to use a gun instead of a taser in all situations. I think officers need to accept risk is inherent in their line of work. Waiting for confirmation of a gun or weapon before turning to lethal means is prudent, especially given the large number of people who've been killed under questionable circumstances.

Why should any police officer or citizen have to give any kind of concessions to someone who is trying to attack them with a deadly weapon?

a reply to: Bluntone22

No...

This is a reaction to a KNIFE wielding opponent, not a gun toting one. Play the ball that is on the feild, don't bring your own!