Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trooper shoots suspect in a gun grapple

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trooper shoots suspect in a gun grapple

    http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...uy_in_the_Head

    Points to consider:

    1 - If the suspect had not dropped his gun, he would have maintained the assaults momentum and we could have a dead cop on hand.

    2 - This was a long struggle. Conditioning and strength training. Note the time code...time code count, from hands-on to fatal shot fired, was one minute 23 seconds. LONG fight with 2 guns present.

    3 - Preassaultive body language. Learn it. Know it.
    Love it.

    4 - Know how to transition between skills, positions and ranges. From standing at striking distance, the clinch, the take down, the ground - as well as Gun retention, foiling someone else's attempt to arm himseld and the use of your weapon in all those positions, standing, clinch, takedown and a grapple.

    5 - If you carry a knife, that may be an appropriate time to plant it in his neck. Be aware he is thinking the same thing.

    Ok, enough from me.

    Discuss.
    Last edited by Mitchell_in_CT; 05-29-2006, 02:39 PM.

  • #2
    BTW, please disragard the bullshi+ from the father and media on how good his son was. Its not relavant to survival.

    Questions I have for you guys:

    1 - What kind of gear do you wear for safety when doing one of these scenarios in a training evolution? Eye protection, Cup, Mouth piece...anything else?

    2 - Got any specific conditioning work for one of these scenarios? Any particular weight/endurance drills dedicated to this, or just standard mat work?
    Last edited by Mitchell_in_CT; 05-29-2006, 02:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT
      BTW, please disragard the bullshi+ from the father and media on how good his son was. Its not relavant to survival.

      If his son was soo good- he wouldn't have tried to KILL the officer!Sad that this was made into a blk and wht issue, and I know the father is hurting ,but he ( the father) knew what type of son he had-I know lots of hard working people ,who have stone BASTARDS and Brats for kids-they simply REFUSE to see their "sweet babies" as the punks they really are.Dad wouldn't have said SH*T if the kid had killed the Copper. I tell my nephews that if they are stopped by police officers ,DO whatever the officer tells them to do,no matter what they "think" about the officers "attitude"- respect the officer, and then if theres a problem,to call me to come and get them !Like I said ,it shouldn't be seen as blk and wht, the coppers out on the streets are "scared"- they have a right to be,'cause theres no telling who'll try to KILL you these days,even a "soccer mom " in a mini van can get crazy and try to hurt a cop!If that trooper had let his guard down,we all would have heard his name announced in DC this may................
      Last edited by DOAcop38; 05-30-2006, 10:52 PM.
      "we're americans ! We don't quit because we're wrong, we just keep doing it wrong UNTIL it turns out Right"...

      Comment


      • #4
        Not that I disagree...but that doesn't exactly focus on the lessons that come from the incident.

        Well...other than a personal rule of mine: don't kill people on camera.

        Oh, wait...well...ok, sometimes its ok to kill people on camera. Adjusting and updating personal rules at this time.

        Rules Updated. Thank you and have a nice day.

        Comment


        • #5


          1. Clear-cut case of self-defense on the part of the officer. What part of "Your spawn is a little thug." does the bad guy's dad not understand? No, his son did not have to die -- and he would not have been killed if he was not trying to take out a law enforcement officer performing his duties. Duh!

          2. That trooper saved the taxpayers of his state quite a bit of money, since they don't have to keep the perp fed, housed and clothed for another fifty years or so. (Sure, I know there will be legal battles.....but sometimes you just gotta suck it up when the poop hits the fan.)

          3. One more bad guy is out of circulation. Rest assured that anyone with the stones to try to cap a trooper will have no qualms about preying on ordinary unarmed citizens.

          4. Now there is yet another training video that may be used for instructional purposes at multiple police academy classes throughout the nation.



          The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

          The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

          ------------------------------------------------

          "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

          Comment


          • #6
            I bet his father is one of those "shoot to injure" people
            Future Farva

            Comment


            • #7
              "Baker's family might file a law suit..."

              1. If you are a "good" law abiding citizen, you have absolutely no reason to resist a pat-down by a L.E.O.

              2. If you are a "good" law abiding citizen with a gun, you have absolutely no reason to resist a pat-down by a L.E.O., although it would be in your best interest to inform the L.E.O. of any possession of a weapon.

              3. If you are a "dirt-bag" who does not like L.E.O.'s, or has any reason to resist a pat-down by an L.E.O., or are trying to harm an L.E.O., do not be surprised when that L.E.O. responds with appropriate force.

              If anything, people should learn from this video the difficulties and hazards of being an L.E.O.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CA_Patriot

                1. If you are a "good" law abiding citizen, you have absolutely no reason to resist a pat-down by a L.E.O.

                .
                If you are a "good" law abiding citizen, then you would object to a breakdown of civil liberties and criminal procedure which are the very laws that the citizen and LEO are supposed to abide by.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by speedygonzalez
                  If you are a "good" law abiding citizen, then you would object to a breakdown of civil liberties and criminal procedure which are the very laws that the citizen and LEO are supposed to abide by.
                  What makes you believe there is a breakdown of civil liberties going on here?
                  Last edited by CA_Patriot; 06-04-2006, 11:20 PM. Reason: Spelled there wrong...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    because regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. If I as a law abiding citizen were asked for consent to search anything(my person, my car, my home) I would offer a blanket denial. The only reason that an officer would be asking me for such information is because he does not have enough justification to carry out the search without my consent. Why allow government agents to wade through my personal property without justification?

                    I value my privacy. If I were apprached by a LEO, I would do the following. State clearly that I do not consent to any search, request an attorney and subsequently remain silent until I have spoken to my attorney. If circumstances dictated(in my state we have a mandatory intoxilyzer test which is required and penalties are added if you refuse such the test) I would state my objection to any search, giving of samples etc unless my lack of cooperation would specifically violate a statute.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You're one of those burry the guns in the back yard because the blue suits are comming for me types aren't ya? lol

                      Lighten up

                      If your an honest person and not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. It's the dirtbags we are after, not the law abiding citizens we are sworn to protect. A cop is not going to ask a guy he stops for some traffic violation for consent to search unless he has reasonable suspicion that something criminal is going on. If you refuse and act like an *** it only makes things worse and strengthens the cop's suspicions.

                      When you deal with liers and thieves all day and night sometimes the honest ones get caught in the middle. Just realize we have to act a certain way and do certain things for our survival.
                      Last edited by Enforcer_CPD; 06-05-2006, 12:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by speedygonzalez
                        because regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. If I as a law abiding citizen were asked for consent to search anything(my person, my car, my home) I would offer a blanket denial. The only reason that an officer would be asking me for such information is because he does not have enough justification to carry out the search without my consent. Why allow government agents to wade through my personal property without justification?

                        I value my privacy. If I were apprached by a LEO, I would do the following. State clearly that I do not consent to any search, request an attorney and subsequently remain silent until I have spoken to my attorney. If circumstances dictated(in my state we have a mandatory intoxilyzer test which is required and penalties are added if you refuse such the test) I would state my objection to any search, giving of samples etc unless my lack of cooperation would specifically violate a statute.

                        I am a beginner in the field of law enforcement, but here is my take on the situation. Obviously, the suspect has done something that has constituted a stopping by a L.E.O., or the situation wouldn't be. Obviously again, if we see the suspect behind his vehicle, the L.E.O. has seen/smelt/heard enough to require the suspect to exit the vehicle and require further investigation. The only argument to this would be that the L.E.O. is "screwing" with the suspect, which I find hard to believe, considering the events that occur during this stop.

                        If the suspect was even following the mentality that you describe in your previous post, why does he initiate confrontation with the L.E.O.?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm not stating that the suspect was in any way correct in initiating confrontation. In fact, he was quite stupid. My previous post described the general procedure that I, as an individual would follow if I were to be stopped by an officer, I did not attempt to address the situation described in the video.

                          "If you refuse and act like an *** it only makes things worse" it only makes things worse for the officer. Neither silence nor refusal of consent to search can be construed as admissions of culpability and should be treated as such.

                          If the officer decides to act on his suspicions and illegaly(determined later by the judicial system, not by myself on-site) search or arrest me, then he will do his search and find nothing. But by conducting that search illegaly he would have placed himself in all sorts of legal jeopardy.

                          I value my privacy and I do not like other people poring over my personal effects. If the officer feels he has reasonable cause to search without my consent then obviously he will do so and the correctness of his determination of reasonable cause will be addressed later.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by speedygonzalez
                            I'm not stating that the suspect was in any way correct in initiating confrontation. In fact, he was quite stupid. My previous post described the general procedure that I, as an individual would follow if I were to be stopped by an officer, I did not attempt to address the situation described in the video.

                            "If you refuse and act like an *** it only makes things worse" it only makes things worse for the officer. Neither silence nor refusal of consent to search can be construed as admissions of culpability and should be treated as such.

                            If the officer decides to act on his suspicions and illegaly(determined later by the judicial system, not by myself on-site) search or arrest me, then he will do his search and find nothing. But by conducting that search illegaly he would have placed himself in all sorts of legal jeopardy.

                            I value my privacy and I do not like other people poring over my personal effects. If the officer feels he has reasonable cause to search without my consent then obviously he will do so and the correctness of his determination of reasonable cause will be addressed later.
                            Let me guess, a law student?
                            I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by speedygonzalez
                              because regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. If I as a law abiding citizen were asked for consent to search anything(my person, my car, my home) I would offer a blanket denial. The only reason that an officer would be asking me for such information is because he does not have enough justification to carry out the search without my consent. Why allow government agents to wade through my personal property without justification?

                              I value my privacy. If I were apprached by a LEO, I would do the following. State clearly that I do not consent to any search, request an attorney and subsequently remain silent until I have spoken to my attorney. If circumstances dictated(in my state we have a mandatory intoxilyzer test which is required and penalties are added if you refuse such the test) I would state my objection to any search, giving of samples etc unless my lack of cooperation would specifically violate a statute.

                              Why would you go through all this trouble if you were abiding by the law?

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4297 users online. 306 members and 3991 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X