Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I got my first real action this past weekend.

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

  • Don of the Dead
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    I don't mean to get off topic here, but baton strikes to primary targets (arms, hands, legs, etc.) are rarely lethal. The baton becomes a lethal weapon when used to strike tertiary targets such as the head or neck.

    I understand what you are trying to say, however. In fact, our state's police academy teaches that the baton is a "step" above other less lethal options such as OC spray. (OC spray and the like for basic active resistance and baton or other impact weapons for "aggressive" active resistance.) However, it's been noted by my own agency that the academy teaches that model because many local departments have similiar models, not due to any state or case law.

    You're trying to differentiate between the lethality of baton vs. OC spray or other options, when in fact, it's the way the weapon is used that determines how lethal it can be. A baton strike to a hand is not likely to be lethal, but perhaps using your OC can to grind someone's eyeballs out may be...

    The point is moot because even if you place impact weapon strikes "above" other less lethal weapons, the original poster described aggressive activate resistance on the part of the suspect. There's no issue in court that he used other (perhaps "lower") force options such as OC spray and his Taser because he stated the obvious--his baton was ineffective and in fact broke. Of course he needed to switch to another weapon.
    Not to mention if the guy was assaulting the woman, spraying him could risk spraying her, if hes , say choking her or shaking her, a good baton strike would at the very least get his attention off the victiom and and have him facing someone who can defend themselves (i.e. YOU)

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Let me clear up a few misconceptions. The end most collapsible portion of my baton was what broke off when I hit the attacker. Now, if I expand it, only the first collapsible portion is still there. I struck him in the small of his back because by the time I deployed it, his back was facing me, and there wasn't too much I could strike.

    Secondly, when I say that the assailant "struck" the young lady's vehicle, he did it with his own vehicle. Furthermore, contrary to what some of the early responders to this thread say, he was directly behind her and merely rammed her vehicle at a low rate of speed that did not even move her vehicle forward. Nobody's life was in danger, and that is why I never drew my firearm.

    I'm almost certain that, being in the same situation, and depending on your company's use of force protocols and procedures, 90% of you would have responded the same way. I told the story exactly as it happened, but due to the fact that none of you were there, my words are nevertheless subject to various interpretations.

    Have I cleared up any and all misunderstandings?

    Finally, when I say that the attacker heard the young lady calling the police, she was inside her vehicle with the windows rolled down and her door open (which she had opened earlier when she was telling me what was going on), and the attacker was inside his vehicle, which was right behind hers, with his window open. That is why he was able to hear her calling 911.
    Seeing that it was a low speed bump i change may opinion in the use of deadly force. I figured since this guy was angry he backed up and hit the vehicle with substantial force, Not just a mere bump. BTW have you purchased a new baton yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • tattedupboy
    replied
    Let me clear up a few misconceptions. The end most collapsible portion of my baton was what broke off when I hit the attacker. Now, if I expand it, only the first collapsible portion is still there. I struck him in the small of his back because by the time I deployed it, his back was facing me, and there wasn't too much I could strike.

    Secondly, when I say that the assailant "struck" the young lady's vehicle, he did it with his own vehicle. Furthermore, contrary to what some of the early responders to this thread say, he was directly behind her and merely rammed her vehicle at a low rate of speed that did not even move her vehicle forward. Nobody's life was in danger, and that is why I never drew my firearm.

    I'm almost certain that, being in the same situation, and depending on your company's use of force protocols and procedures, 90% of you would have responded the same way. I told the story exactly as it happened, but due to the fact that none of you were there, my words are nevertheless subject to various interpretations.

    Have I cleared up any and all misunderstandings?

    Finally, when I say that the attacker heard the young lady calling the police, she was inside her vehicle with the windows rolled down and her door open (which she had opened earlier when she was telling me what was going on), and the attacker was inside his vehicle, which was right behind hers, with his window open. That is why he was able to hear her calling 911.
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 03-10-2008, 08:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Originally posted by davis002 View Post
    I agree. You cannot use deadly force when someone is not in any imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

    Bigdog, would you use deadly force on someone striking a vehicle at low speeds in a parking lot? Think about it... you are talking about using deadly force to protect property.
    N.A. this was in relation to Davis's post (which discusses deadly force).

    My post was in relation to assessing fight or flight ......... alternatives. Whilst we all come from different backgrounds, different training, different mental abilities, different company BS policies, different country / state, city and even county laws there is always some logic behind involvement from different posters.

    As for striking the agressor in the middle of the back - I don't know the situation placed in by the OP, but from my experience and training it is not considered an approve strike zone - but if it was a choice of their life or mine, I would utilise any strike zone to ensure my safety and well being.

    Perhaps it's best if I just grab a back pew and watch the others play for awhile as I forgot to add illustrations with my previous post. Sorry for peeing in the sand box as well.
    Last edited by NRM_Oz; 03-10-2008, 08:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I'm having trouble understanding what Australian police shooting people armed with firearms and knives has to do with the present topic. Can you please help me with the thought process?
    That's quite easy... if you use some lateral thinking a correlation between use-of-force, the fight OR flight mental/physical response & your baseball bat/vehicle metaphors is evident...

    When in an escalating situation you need to trust your instincts, training & whatever logic is working at the time of the heightened adrenaline rush, second guessing is for those with the 'luxury' of hindsight as we can only do the best we can at the time, you of all people should know there are 3 responses to a given incident...

    * the appropriate trained/textbook response
    * the Ninja/Hollywood response &
    * what you actually do


    We all would've behaved slightly different to the originally stated scenario however that's because we don't share mutual experience, training & mental processes/patterns of thought, curiously I'd like to know why the aggressor was struck in the small of his back? was it a misguided/off target strike? is that an appropriate strike zone in the US training model?

    BTW kudos to the original poster for getting the job done without harm to himself! this should be our ultimate goal should it not?
    Last edited by Maelstrom; 03-10-2008, 04:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by NRM_Oz View Post
    Fight or Flight ?

    If you have no alternatives then you go with your ONLY choice. I have read a coroner's report of a Psychotic Patient who was on the beach surrounded by 6 police officers. The agreessor was incoherent and armed with a large carving knife and this well before OC spray was ever issued to our police. The aggressor was eventually shot having advanced towards the most senior police officer despite repeated warnings to drop the knife.

    Sadly he was fatally shot and then the media got involved saying "the should have just shot him in the leg or hand". As someone who has never fired a shot in anger or been a LEO, I have spent hundreds of hours in training in order to ensure if I had no choice I would judge the situation as best as I could at the time to protect, myself, others, and had no alternative.

    Now about 10 years ago a Senior Sergeant was getting a food order from a strip mall about 20 yds from the police station. He spotted an unknown person loitering and approached him when the agressor pulled out a firearm as the S.Sgt drew his own weapon firing 9 times and hitting the agressor only 3 times. This was based on adrenalin and anyone knows how this can affect your motorskills. This was from about 12 feet away and he too was asked about shooting the agressor in the hand or leg.

    I am all for Tasers as it will bring someone down to be controlled without the fatal consequences of a firearm.
    I'm having trouble understanding what Australian police shooting people armed with firearms and knives has to do with the present topic. Can you please help me with the thought process?

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Fight or Flight ?

    If you have no alternatives then you go with your ONLY choice. I have read a coroner's report of a Psychotic Patient who was on the beach surrounded by 6 police officers. The agreessor was incoherent and armed with a large carving knife and this well before OC spray was ever issued to our police. The aggressor was eventually shot having advanced towards the most senior police officer despite repeated warnings to drop the knife.

    Sadly he was fatally shot and then the media got involved saying "the should have just shot him in the leg or hand". As someone who has never fired a shot in anger or been a LEO, I have spent hundreds of hours in training in order to ensure if I had no choice I would judge the situation as best as I could at the time to protect, myself, others, and had no alternative.

    Now about 10 years ago a Senior Sergeant was getting a food order from a strip mall about 20 yds from the police station. He spotted an unknown person loitering and approached him when the agressor pulled out a firearm as the S.Sgt drew his own weapon firing 9 times and hitting the agressor only 3 times. This was based on adrenalin and anyone knows how this can affect your motorskills. This was from about 12 feet away and he too was asked about shooting the agressor in the hand or leg.

    I am all for Tasers as it will bring someone down to be controlled without the fatal consequences of a firearm.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    If the woman were a pedestrian, and the man kept hitting her with the vehicle, then I could see a possible reasonable justification for deadly force.

    The woman was protected from the fender bending by her vehicle's active and passive restraint systems. There was no justification for deadly force.

    This would be like someone saying that they were in fear for their life from a man hitting their tire with a baseball bat.

    The bat is a weapon, and capable of causing death or great bodily harm, but isn't being used in that manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Nope - I don't see this as a clear-cut firearms justification situation at all.
    I agree. You cannot use deadly force when someone is not in any imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

    Bigdog, would you use deadly force on someone striking a vehicle at low speeds in a parking lot? Think about it... you are talking about using deadly force to protect property.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Near end of the next to last paragraph, Curtis:

    "Otherwise, the situation could have escalated further, possibly involving me using my firearm."
    Thanks. I just wasn't picking that up.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by bigdog View Post
    He as far as i can see he wouldve clearly been justified in using the firearm when the suspect repeatedly rammed the vehicle. Motor vehicle = deadly force weapon when used as one.
    Sorry, but I don't quite read the OP that way. Let's not jump to conclusions.

    First, he doesn't use the word "rammed", which obviously overstates the word he does use, "struck", and might just as easily be understated as "bumped", especially since we have two cars that are stopped and one right behind the other, so that "ramming" is highly unlikely. In fact, we might even be completely misinterpreting "struck" because the way the OP is written, he might have struck her car with his fist as he was going to his car.

    Second, even if he did strike her car with his, there still has to be someone who is in imminent and grave danger from any deadly weapon, whether it is a poison dart or a 3000-pound vehicle, before there's justification for using deadly force. We don't know that the female driver was even in her car when this happened. In fact, since the driver was in HIS car when he heard her call the police from her cell phone, it seems more likely that she was outside her car. How could he have heard her making a call if he was in his car and she was in hers?

    She apparently had a passenger in her car, but a passenger inside a vehicle is not likely in such grave danger of harm from being struck at low speed by another vehicle.

    Nope - I don't see this as a clear-cut firearms justification situation at all. The mere striking of one vehicle by another, especially at what must have been very low speed under the circumstances in this parking lot, does not constitute a grave danger of serious injury or death, and hence is not justification for the use of deadly force. As I see it, the most you could have done would have been to physically remove the driver from his vehicle, subdue him and slap the cuffs on him.

    It would be different, of course, if he had been trying to strike the female herself with his car rather than trying to damage her car, but I don't read the OP that way at all. IMHO, this officer acted with perfectly appropriate restraint and would have incurred serious liability had he used his firearm to solve this problem.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-08-2008, 06:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post
    I've re-read the OP a few times and still fail to read that he was even armed with a "firearm" - as some had said he would of been justified to use.
    Near end of the next to last paragraph, Curtis:

    "Otherwise, the situation could have escalated further, possibly involving me using my firearm."

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    I've re-read the OP a few times and still fail to read that he was even armed with a "firearm" - as some had said he would of been justified to use.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    IMHO, this episode makes a perfect argument for the deployment of Tasers. Use of a firearm would have been somewhat problematic as I read the scenario, but this subject was ripe for tasing without incurring the least problem with "excessive force".
    He as far as i can see he wouldve clearly been justified in using the firearm when the suspect repeatedly rammed the vehicle. Motor vehicle = deadly force weapon when used as one.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Before I get criticized, I'm not someone who is looking for trouble or who gets excited at the thought of getting physical while on the job. I'm just posting this to share my experience and to reflect on, contrary to many peoples' perceptions, just how dangerous my job can be at times.

    This past Saturday, 1 March 2008 at approximately 20:45, a young woman in a van pulled into the parking lot of the check cashing store where I work and was being closely followed by another car. At first, it appeared as if the van was broken down and was being pushed by the car, but when the occupant of the car exited his vehicle and began arguing with the woman in the van, I saw that that clearly was not the case and I went outside in hopes that I could peacefully resolve the situation.

    The woman in the van explained to me that the man in the second vehicle had been following her since she left the hospital located in the neighboring city. The man with whom she was arguing told me that this was a personal matter between himself and the young woman and that I should just stay out of it. I explained that if it is going on on this company's property, it does concern me and it is my job to make sure that it does not escalate.

    I continued trying to talk to this man for the next five minutes, during which he returned to his vehicle at least two more times and struck the woman's van both times. I finally told him that if he did not leave immediately, I would call the police and he would go to jail. As he returned to his vehicle for a final time, the young woman called the police on her cell phone and when he heard that, he exited his vehicle again, went up to her van, and began physically assaulting her.

    I hit the man once in the small of his back with my expandable baton, breaking it. At the same time, another male, who was a passenger in the vehicle in which the woman was driving, exited her vehicle and began fighting with the first man. While they were struggling, I sprayed the first man with pepper spray. Because that only seemed to agitate him more, I took out my 600,000 volt stun gun and was able to stun him in his lower torso area, which had become exposed during the struggle. This worked in subduing him, and I was easily able to get him to the ground to handcuff him and I held him there until the police arrived a minute later.

    Remember, this is in house security, and I'm the only guard working there, meaning I don't have backup to call whenever something happens. I guess it was just a stroke of luck that the guy with whom he was struggling held him in a headlock so that I could subdue him. Otherwise, the situation could have escalated further, possibly involving me using my firearm. Fortunately, it didn't and the guy was taken to jail and his car was towed.

    Do you guys think I handled this properly? The officer I spoke to thought so, and even told me to get better pepper spray, because the guy was able to see again after 15 minutes.
    IMHO, this episode makes a perfect argument for the deployment of Tasers. Use of a firearm would have been somewhat problematic as I read the scenario, but this subject was ripe for tasing without incurring the least problem with "excessive force".
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-08-2008, 04:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X