Reckless Anaheim Police Chase/Shooting

[FireInTheWire]

Holy shit! An AR15 inside a vehicle....

 

[oldag]

Just curious, would you hold off shooting if some dude that was high as a kite pointed a gun at you? I mean, come on. That's not a reasonable request.



You're kind of jumping the gun here. HOW do they get the stop? Is the guy just going to magically give up with 50 more cops show up? They best way that I can see to stop him would be spike strips, and that's not going to stop him immediate. In fact, it might not stop him for awhile. At that point, you have a guy that's high off his ass driving down the roads in a truck that is now hard to control. What if he hits and kills someone? Again, you can't really expect the police to use a PIT maneuver when he's sticking a gun out the window and pointing it at them. What are they supposed to do in that situation?

Also remember, this guy had what the officers had every reason to believe was a gun. I don't care if it ended up being a toy or not, they were told it was a gun, it looked like a gun, and he was pointing it at them like a gun. Who's to say someone like that wouldn't start shooting at the officers in the pursuit or at random citizens? Can the officers shoot back during the chase once one of their own is killed?

You see the point I'm getting at, right? It's not always as simple as waiting for back up.



Again, would you give an attacker the first shot? No? Then why would you expect the police to wait until the guy shoots at and potentially kills an officer to use lethal force?



In a perfect world, every bullet would be accounted for, every violent suspect would be in front of a mountain of dirt, and every officer would be able to hit a bullseye at 50 yards with their side arm. This is not a perfect world, and rarely do police have the luxury of having everything you described. They should be mindful of where they are shooting no doubt, but you don't always get to choose the circumstances in which that happens.



Never said it was. Nothing is solely black or white.

Rather than re-hashing the same ground, will leave it at we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BillFairbanks]

Here’s an instructional video on shooting from cars




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FireInTheWire]

Here’s an instructional video on shooting from cars




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks... i just blew 44mins watching Alaska state troopers because of this....

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

If shooting through windshields is ok, for gawd's sake carry some quickly accessed ear protection.

P.S. Given deflection issues with this method of shooting at bg's and some innocent bystander is smoked from a deflected round

...what then?

Just another dead mushroom?

 

[Maverick44]

Rather than re-hashing the same ground, will leave it at we will just have to agree to disagree.

You never addressed those questions, so how could we be re-hashing them?

Very well, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[candcallen]

Without getting Into the shit storm I will say most departments have rules about shooting into or from a moving vehicle for a reason. Like every round fired someone will be held responsible for what happens after a vehicle is uncontrolled. Some states put the whole responsibility on the fleeing driver while others place at least some responsibility on the officers chasing. You can probably guess which states are which by the policies.

While no real rounds were fired by the driver, several witnesses said the driver was firing his gun. If a real gun was found and this guy had really been shooting I think the discipline would have been different. As seen other places.

Why they acted so..recklessly or extreme I dont know but suspect they got tunnel vision from the adrenaline and intensity of the pursuit. It's a real danger that happens in intense situations where no one says slow down and think this thru. Police are specifically trained to recognize this in themselves and other staff so it can be mitigated. I would bet the whole department is being retrained in this as we speak.

The sr officer should have taken control and at least stopped the officer driving from shooting and driving and this may have provided a little focus to further assessed the situation.
Justified and right are not always the same.

A general observation....
Police are not required to throw their lives away stupidly but they are expected to wait that half second longer and assume the risk to determine the entirety of the situation. If they cant assume that risk then they shouldn't be police officers. Still were all human and all make mistakes that's why there is some leeway for officers acting in good faith. Nothing is ever perfect. So instead of arguing every point to death like seminary students arguing for and against the concept of predestination let's just learn from others and apply it to our actions.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While no real rounds were fired by the driver, several witnesses said the driver was firing his gun.

Excellent example of the lack of reliability of witnesses.

 

[avvidclif]

Gotta love the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. About the same as officiating in the NFL.

 

[oldag]

Gotta love the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. About the same as officiating in the NFL.

You are so right. No LEO in the history of the world has ever violated sound procedure, done anything less than completely wise, broken the law, etc. ad nauseam. Any officer disciplined, fired or convicted was treated so unjustly.

 

[candcallen]

Excellent example of the lack of reliability of witnesses.

Point of info...
Actually they saw his gun actually cycling and recoiling. He was doing all he could to look like he was shooting. Weather it was capable of doing this I dont know but many gas airsoft guns are.
That said eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate about specific details but when put together show a broad pic of the incident. One person saying his gun was firing can be dismissed. For or five saying it shows a clearer picture.

Bitch and moan about Monday morning quarterbacking all you want but that's how people learn from these instances.
Law Enforcement and their supporters, of which I am/ have been a member of both groups, are chronically butt hurt over scrutiny of their actions. This has to change. There has to be open frank discussion of incidents and what went right and wrong.

Doctors do this closed door where a doctor who loses a patient stand before the rest of the faculty and gives a report on what happened and then it is hashed out. What went right wrong and who's to blame if anyone. Yes theres lots of butthurt but more importantly lots of learning.

Law Enforcement cant do this in private. It has to be done in public or there is no trust and no support. It comes with the job and when people bitch about Monday morning quarterbacking they are showing ignorance of the process. The officers Department disciplines and retrains if needed. Everyone else learns. Screaming about Monday morning quarterbacking shows a critical lack understanding of what's going on. It is the only way to come up with a better way of doing things.

Those who get butthurt, those who hate everything police do and those who act like they are on a crusade on either side need to be cast aside for the sake of honest learning and development of better tactics. Besides the butthurt and crusaders get over it and benefit from it in the end too.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Gotta love the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

And yet, here you are. And the funny thing is, you have contributed to the process.

 

[SQLGeek]

About the same as officiating in the NFL.

Talk about something that everybody has an opinion on while few are informed enough to do so...

 

[candcallen]

MMQs and anti MMQs, who usually MMQ others while railing against such things, are both full partners and contributors to the process. Some peoples hypocrisy is limited and others knows no bounds. Its human nature.

Like I said, throw some butthurt salve on and be a productive member of the process. The more who contribute the better the assessments and learning will be.

No one or their actions are sacrosanct and above question. That only occurs in a totalitarian shit hole society. Everyone must be made and or allowed to demonstrate their thought process and why they did what they did. It isnt some kind of insult to undergo that process. For police it's really no different than we the people must endure if we use deadly force. There is a different standard due to training but the process should be no different. Officers who make mistakes and learn from it will be the supervisor of the future. They will be limiting the mistakes from reoccurring unless honest open evaluation is stymied by those railing against MMQBing or saying they have to decide in a split second you dont have a right to question their actions. You are doing individual officers and law Enforcement as a whole no favors by covering actions or sugar coating mistakes or refusing to allow learning from errors. Yes sometimes officers are fired or prosecuted for such things but I guarantee you the job or life such things save may be your own.

Because of their job duties training and the difficulties they encounter they have certain immunity if acting in good faith. It provides certain protections if acting with the bounds of training policy and the law. They loose those protections if they act outside those parameters. Identifying failures and correcting those only strengthens the protections for police who do a difficult job under what are at times nearly impossible conditions.

Legally justified is not always the best or right way to do things. I dismiss people who dont like to face scrutiny or see others face scrutiny in these situations as a waste of time because you cant move forward carrying a 2 ton hemorrhoid cause your butthurt. Honest committed people may not like the feeling of such scrutiny but know its required and not personal.

 

[Charlie]

Verbosity abounds!

 

[Sublime]

So what is the appropriate protocol to take when someone points a gun at you that you are chasing?



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[candcallen]

Verbosity abounds!

Probably arent the targeted audience.

 

[candcallen]

So what is the appropriate protocol to take when someone points a gun at you that you are chasing?
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Not enough info to answer that question but that's the point of such over simplifications. Arent they.

In this instance they were obviously legally justified to respond as they did with the information they had, at least at some point and enough not to be charged for any negative consequences of their actions. Again, acting in good faith and not grossly negligent they have some immunity that civilians might to get in similar circumstances. i.e. the threat is obviously running away rapidly and a civilian would have to justify doing what the police did.

Still the Department fired the probie because the can without all the BS push back a perm employee is entitled to. The other officer may still get fired at the end of the process and if so you can bet they think and probably prove he obviously and intentionally violated some serious policies and procedures.

So did they or didnt they respond properly?
What should one do when chasing a car pointing a gun at you? Stop chasing or back off? Create distance to increase the time you have to decide? I mean if hes not shooting yet..

In simplest terms equal force. That said, no use of force situation is simple, especially high profile or unique deadly force decisions. Are both vehicles moving at the point a gun is pointed at you? Obviously in the simple question posed. Are rounds actually exitingthe vehicle? Are officers allowed to shoot at or from a moving vehicle? Is he activly shooting, i.e. you will know if he is, what danger is he to you or others? What's the risk benefit analysis of backing off versus shooting? What danger is a high speed uncontrolled SUV after you hit him? And a gazillion other things. And yes your supposed to do your best to work thru all of that in an instant. That's the job.

So, attempting to simply ask shoot or dont shoot is a rather disingenuous question. Kinda like when someone say guns are needed as a check on tyranny and get the rhetorical question "what are you going to do shoot the government? " it's meant to force a simplistic contrivance so the other party can play gotcha if they dont like the answer.

Still I'll play along, kinda. In this instance I probably would have backed off. That said in the other rolling gunfight recently whe the people in the SUV were shooting at anything and everything and had committed a serious crime iirc before the police contact I have no problems with the officers, multiple officers, engaging as they chased thru town.

Nothings simple, that's why you break it down. Or aka MMQB it.

 

[majormadmax]

Lots of words, didn't read...

Still I'll play along, kinda. In this instance I probably would have backed off. That said in the other rolling gunfight recently whe the people in the SUV were shooting at anything and everything and had committed a serious crime iirc before the police contact I have no problems with the officers, multiple officers, engaging as they chased thru town.

Which goes to the predicament the police always face...they're damned if they do their jobs, and they're damned if they don't.

Let's look at an alternate way this could have played out. The drugged-up perp actually has a real firearm as originally reported. Police chase him but decide to back off because of the risks involved in a high speed chase especially with shots exchanged. Perp then goes on to kill others because, well, he's drugged-up and hostile. Cops are crucified because they had a chance to put a stop to it, but didn't.

I for one am of the opinion that the police need to continue to do everything within their power to stop a clear threat. Yes, the risks are high; but those associated with inaction can be even higher.

So, since we're "playing along," I would continue the chase and use all means necessary--to include lethal force--to stop the threat. This is not a misdemeanor offense the individual was accused of committing, therefore appropriate action was necessary.

 

[Sublime]

Not enough info to answer that question but that's the point of such over simplifications. Arent they.

In this instance they were obviously legally justified to respond as they did with the information they had, at least at some point and enough not to be charged for any negative consequences of their actions.

So, attempting to simply ask shoot or dont shoot is a rather disingenuous question. Kinda like when someone say guns are needed as a check on tyranny and get the rhetorical question "what are you going to do shoot the government? " it's meant to force a simplistic contrivance so the other party can play gotcha if they dont like the answer.

Still I'll play along, kinda. In this instance I probably would have backed off. That said in the other rolling gunfight recently whe the people in the SUV were shooting at anything and everything and had committed a serious crime iirc before the police contact I have no problems with the officers, multiple officers, engaging as they chased thru town.

Nothings simple, that's why you break it down.

You can feel it was disingenious but it was a reasonable Q.
I actually agree with most everything you wrote. It IS a dynamic event that quickly changes and if we weren't there than well, we don't know. Policies are enacted for general circumstances but policy deviation is allowed IF you can logically explain it.

We can what if the thing all day long. What if they did create distance and the guy plows into a crowd and then uses his gun that he only pointed at officers on unarmed civillians? Man is a dangerous animal and anytime you try to restrain or kill him and he doesnt want to be restrained or killed, well there are gonna be problems. This outcome was nothing and the Chief should seriously handle this i ternally. The rookie supposedly was ex military? I hear the argument that soldiers and cops are different. Well yeah but that difference has been getting smaller for awhile. The Chief fired the rookie because they could under probationary status like you said. It is a shame because his skills might come in iseful down the road. It happened here in Arlington. Chief fires a recruit that did not follow his FTO. Recruit justifiably caps a guy. Bad guy black and young. Recruit was white. You do the cultural diversity math.




Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk