Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[TRICKSTER]

You think that only you SWAT guys get select-fire carbines? You are highly misinformed. This regular, everyday street patrol cop "brags" about how "much cooler mine is than yours" and can't wait to show off his select-fire M4. Finally, @ around 11 minutes, he breaks it out. (BTW, I showed this earlier in the thread - guess some weren't paying attention or didn't bother reading through before posting bogus info. And a LEO to boot!! Shame on you.

And how do you know that this officer isn't part of his departments SWAT team? Most departments do not have a dedicated SWAT Team, their teams are made up of patrol officers that have SWAT training and respond to incidents as required. Many times they have their weapons in their vehicles for a quicker response.
So now that you have made this claim, please provide proof that this officer is not part of his departments SWAT Team and that this one video somehow proves that this is standard issue for regular everyday patrol.
If you can't do this and are spreading bogus info because you didn't bother to do your research before making this claim, then shame on you.

[John M]

Supersonic.. I can speak for my agency, those around me and others that friends work for... pretty much goes for all of CA. Like the post above, there is a good chance this officer is assigned to a tactical team, or maybe he lives in a state where full auto is legal. As far as being misinformed, until you can prove non swat Patrol officers are carrying full auto weapons the only one misinformed is you!

So I watched this video and see a tricked out weapon, which means 2 things... SWAT or personally owned.

[supersonic]

And how do you know that this officer isn't part of his departments SWAT team? Most departments do not have a dedicated SWAT Team, their teams are made up of patrol officers that have SWAT training and respond to incidents as required. Many times they have their weapons in their vehicles for a quicker response.
So now that you have made this claim, please provide proof that this officer is not part of his departments SWAT Team and that this one video somehow proves that this is standard issue for regular everyday patrol.
If you can't do this and are spreading bogus info because you didn't bother to do your research before making this claim, then shame on you.

Supersonic.. I can speak for my agency, those around me and others that friends work for... pretty much goes for all of CA. Like the post above, there is a good chance this officer is assigned to a tactical team, or maybe he lives in a state where full auto is legal. As far as being misinformed, until you can prove non swat Patrol officers are carrying full auto weapons the only one misinformed is you!

So I watched this video and see a tricked out weapon, which means 2 things... SWAT or personally owned.

Maybe you guys are right. My bad. Sometimes I make mistakes when commenting in LEO-based threads, and this may be one of them. And for that, I apologize. There are too many "battles" going on in this thread between civilians & cops; cops & cops, etc...etc....so I am not going to add another never-ending argument to it. It's not fair to anyone. The SWAT guy that I quoted did make a blanket statement, though, that only SWAT members are allowed to have F/A weapons - no state exemptions, no "personal weapons" exemptions were mentioned. And that's fine. I will do my due diligence and investigate/educate myself thoroughly on this officer in the video, as I should have done before. I assumed that he was non-SWAT because of the fact that he was responding to several "guys with guns" calls without backup - or even a partner. So it never occurred to me that he might be a member of an elite team/unit. Again, my bad. And, as my post was flawed - until proven otherwise - I went ahead and deleted it.

Carry on.

[bigger hammer]

You're taking things awfully personal, aren't you?

You're the one who's repeatedly sniveled about personal attacks.

What made you think I was referring to you specifically?

[bigger hammer]

Let me clue you in on something. This is not an interrogation.

Oh make no mistake. I know that.

Even if it was, I don't have to answer your questions.

Yes, I know. You have the right to remain silent. Even though you're not in custody. lol

I owe you nothing and I expect nothing from you.

I know that too. But let's realize that this is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. I've answered every question that you, or just about anyone else has asked of me. I'm interested is revealing my thought processes, my motivation and giving out information that will help people. Generally forums have quid pro quo kind of relationship between members so that we can learn from each other and about each other. But you don't answer the many questions that I've asked of you. To this point there have been nine of them or so, and you've only answered one or two. The REAL reason that you don't answer is that you know that they punch BIG holes in your arguments. Don't worry, the readers get it.

I didn't pick your occupation for you,

Yes, I know that too. You have a real flair for the obvious.

so I don't really care how much you whine about it.

I'll challenge you to point out ANYPLACE where I've "whined about [my profession]." What I AM doing is laying out policy, procedure and philosophy not only of my profession but of self defense scenarios.

I don't whine about the crap I did and had to put up with serving in the Army. It would be dishonorable and would cheapen my service if I constantly held it over other people's heads.

You might want to take a look at the title of this thread. So that you don't have to work so hard, I'll remind you it's named "Does law Enforcement really need select fire." It's NOT about the military. Your military service, thank you for it, BTW, is irrelevant, except that it's given you a twisted idea of how select−fire weapons might be used by LE. Virtually every time you've mentioned it, it's been about either "spray and pray" or "suppressive fire." Those ARE NOT the only want that these weapons can be used, but you won't admit to the possibility of other ways to use them. In fact, you have pretty much closed your mind to those possibilities!

If you don't like it, then go shove off.

Sorry Doug you DON'T get order me around. You're not my daddy, you're not my boss, and until you're a moderator here, you don't get to tell me what to do. I'll hang around as long as I darn well please! If you don't like that I keep showing how little you know about this topic then you are free to "shove off."

You have made some outrageous claims.

Not at all. This is common knowledge in the LE world. I'm sorry that your training was so substandard that you don't know these things.

I ask for something other than your word to back them up.

You demanded that I produce a video involving weapons that I no longer have access to and supply it for your examination. Not gonna happen. Although I did make you an offer that you could EASILY fulfill. As I so clearly said, "Tell you what, when you answer those questions, I'll think about doing a video for you."

I still have not seen anything close to what you have claimed anywhere online or in my circle of friends that include several veterans.

I'd not expect that you would.

Frankly, if it was not for Jason_2111's post, none of us would believe you because our own person experience with FA and burst contradicts the things you have posted.

I’m sure that it does as well. Based on what you've told us, at least when you were in, the military does not teach hammers, double and triple taps with FA fire. The LEO schools that I've attended do. You also don't run in the same circles that I do. I've got over 100 hours of training with one of the top SWAT team in the US. They're teaching and doing things that are more advanced that what you learned in the military, nearly a quarter century ago. It's not my responsibility to keep you abreast of what's going on in the tactical world. I keep up with such things and when I had access to select−fire weapons practiced them regularly. Based on what we've seen here, you do not.

Could we get back to the topic and off my CV?

[Jason_2111]

For Doug...

You can see the difference in this vid on how well FA handles in an M4 versus what we used to carry back in the day.




FA is fun... but only when you don't have to pay for the ammo!

[bigger hammer]

Where was the act of aggression from the suspect? Was it him struggling to get out of the seat belt he was caught in? Just because he was holding a knife that was never visible in the video I saw, doesn't justify the use of lethal force.

Perhaps you missed this gentleman's resume. He'd been CONVICTED of

• Statutory Rape
• Burglary
• Possession of controlled substances
• Possession of stolen vehicles
• Felony for evading arrest
• Assault with a deadly weapon
• Gang membership

And since he was about to be arrested for violation of parole, AGAIN using drugs, it's reasonable to believe that this officer knew of his criminal history. And so he was greeted at gunpoint when he exited his vehicle. When he produced the knife, and it's not necessary that you see it on the video, (the DA has determined that a knife was present, and one was found in the pickup bed) it's obvious that the officer thought he had a knife since he's heard on the video ordering Mr. Duenez to put it down.

I'll assume that as a former LEO you're familiar with the requirement of Graham v. Connor where the action of an officer in a use of force situation " ... must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."

His act of aggression was in not complying with the officer's order to drop the knife. He was within a distance from which he could have charged and killed the officer with the knife, before he could have been stopped.

I dealt with guys just like him, 10 out of 10 times they'll run.

"10 times out of 10?!" James, really. That's EVERY TIME?! I find it a little hard to believe that EVERY parole violator you ever dealt with ran from you. I can see a couple of possibilities though: either you had very little time on the job, or you were such a badass that you scared them so that they wouldn't surrender. There's another possibility but I hesitate to mention it because I know nothing about you. It's not complimentary. I dealt with hundreds of parole violators. Sometimes they ran. Sometimes they surrendered. Sometimes they fought, often with weapons of various kinds, including guns and knives.

Lots of officers act on this sort of "percentages" information. It's obviously a mistake. Every stop is a new incident where the suspect might do something that the officer has never seen before. This one certainly comes under that heading. The REALITY is that some crooks run, some surrender, and some fight. A good LEO is ready for whatever the crook decides to do. As always, we're reactive to that. I've attended several funerals of LEOs who worked the percentages, as you've mentioned. Assuming that flight will be the response, has already gotten officers killed.

I'm sure the officer dealt with him several times and everytime he got away.

It sounds as if you're alleging that the officer didn't want Mr. Duenez to escape again and so he shot him? Is that what you're saying? But it's obvious that you're assuming facts that ARE NOT in evidence for you to make such a determination from. I think it's just as likely that he was involved in at least one of the arrests and convictions that appear on Mr. Duenez' record. And I'm sure that you know that he's probably committed far more acts than he was convicted for. Since the officer calls Mr. Duenez by his first name on the video, it's just as reasonable to believe that he knows him fairly well, probably from arresting him several times.

I worked with guys that had major hard ons with parolees and guys on probation. So if just holding a knife is a justified shooting,then we should have a lot more officer involved shootings.

It's amazing that you claim to be a former LEO but seem to know so little about this. Can you tell us how long you were in LE, where you worked and what assignments you worked please?

In any case, there's FAR MORE than just holding a knife" in this situation. This is the sort of nonsense that I'd expect from a plaintiff's attorney or someone who knew nothing about uses of force.

The fact that he dumped several rounds into him when he's on the ground and the more than likely fatal shot in the back, is disturbing.

Not if you understand the dynamics of these situations. Have you attended any classes or read anything from the Force Science Institute? Mr. Duenez makes several movements from the ground that appear to me to be that he's trying to get up. If he does, he's a threat all over again. Yet on his last attempt, the officer DOES NOT fire again. It's his perception that the threat has ended.

I'm not bashing the officer or sticking up for the guy

I'll disagree. I think that you ARE "bashing the officer [AND that you are] sticking up for the guy."

but IMO it was a bad shoot and the dept/city will lose a bunch in a civil judgment.

I'd bet that they settle out of court for a minor sum. As I said, the department and the DA's office has already decided that the officer acted properly.

[bigger hammer]

FYI, they never found a knife anywhere near the suspect or in the cab of the truck or on the ground near the suspect, or in his hand.

Eventually they found a small pocket knife in the bed of the truck.

Yep, there WAS a knife at the scene. In these sorts of incidents, weapons are often NOT found in suspect's hands. We found a gun fired by the suspect, on the roof of a nearby building, in one such incident.

AGAIN we see the lack of knowledge of the dynamics of these situations.

[bigger hammer]

You think that only you SWAT guys get select-fire carbines? You are highly misinformed.

Here's THE FULL QUOTATION from JohnM.

The only units that have select fire weapons are SWAT teams and we dont ever operate using full auto. Its a tool in the tool bag. The Military has proven quite effectively that full auto is not effective, hence the 3 round burst.

I'll wait for JohnM to chime in but it seems to me that when taken in context, he's talking about HIS department that "the only units that have select fire weapons are SWAT teams ... "

But pray tell, how do you know that this officer IS NOT part of his department's SWAT team? On MOST smaller departments that have a SWAT team, they are in other assignments and respond in the SWAT role, only when needed. Please show us evidence that you know that the officer shown in the video you presented is not on the department's SWAT team. I think you've made an assumption here and then gone to a "shame on you" against another forum member that may be completely unwarranted.

Wow. If those are the actual facts (suspect was NOT even holding a knife;

Where does this come from? The officer tells Mr. Duenez to "drop the knife now." It doesn't make sense that he would give such a command unless he thought that Mr. Duenez was holding a knife.

the "suspicious-looking" move was the guy trying to get untangled from the seatbelt;

Yep, we know that now. But it wasn't the officer's perception at the time of the incident AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S IMPORTANT in these situations.

small pocket knife found in the outside bed of the truck

The DA has found that Mr. Duenez had a knife at the time of the incident. It makes no difference where it was found. In all the movement that is seen on the video, it's entirely possible that's where it wound up.

There was no threat at that time whatsoever. And, in truth, there was actually never a threat to begin with. (Unless fleeing is considered a "threat" in this particular department).

The officer, the DA and I disagree with you. How much training, education and experience do you have in these sort of investigations?

[Jason_2111]

THANK YOU! I've seen "experts" here talk about how you don't have to aim a shotgun, just "point it in the general direction" of the opponent and let fly! Of course anyone who knows the slightest bit about this situation, knows that this is nonsense.

Up until about 9 months ago, I was one of those people, and I'm the first to admit that I'm nowhere an expert with the shotgun yet. After a few classes though, I can truly appreciate the complexity of it as a weapons system, and I've switched over to a Mossy 590 for home defense instead of my 300 BLK AR.

I'm not a Magpul fanboy or anything like that, but this vid preview of their shotgun vid does a pretty good job of showing how it's not all just point and shoot. I've sent it to several friends who didn't "get the shotgun".... it really helped. I'll leave this here so you have the link handy the next time you're having that same conversation with someone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XCv0X6SqUg

[supersonic]

Here's THE FULL QUOTATION from JohnM.

I'll wait for JohnM to chime in but it seems to me that when taken in context, he's talking about HIS department that "the only units that have select fire weapons are SWAT teams ... "

But pray tell, how do you know that this officer IS NOT part of his department's SWAT team? On MOST smaller departments that have a SWAT team, they are in other assignments and respond in the SWAT role, only when needed. Please show us evidence that you know that the officer shown in the video you presented is not on the department's SWAT team. I think you've made an assumption here and then gone to a "shame on you" against another forum member that may be completely unwarranted.




Where does this come from? The officer tells Mr. Duenez to "drop the knife now." It doesn't make sense that he would give such a command unless he thought that Mr. Duenez was holding a knife.



Yep, we know that now. But it wasn't the officer's perception at the time of the incident AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S IMPORTANT in these situations.



The DA has found that Mr. Duenez had a knife at the time of the incident. It makes no difference where it was found. In all the movement that is seen on the video, it's entirely possible that's where it wound up.



The officer, the DA and I disagree with you. How much training, education and experience do you have in these sort of investigations?

As far as the shooting, we disagree. That's fine. I don't see how the "small pocket knife" could have flown and landed in the bed of the truck without it being visible - as well as the metal-on-metal audio - from the dash cam. Nowhere in that film is it possible that a pocket knife flew up into the air and into the bed of the truck. And I don't see how the last 2-3 shots - that were fired at a much slower rate than the initial 3-4 - after the suspect was down and no longer a threat (especially that last shot to the back) can be justified as anything but a deliberate kill. Even LEO's in this thread say themselves that it was a "bad shoot" - and I fully agree with that. But, again that's my opinion that I am entitled to and we disagree. This thread is full of "disagreement." This type of thing (agreement/disagreement) is old news here at Calguns.

As far as the other topic, maybe you didn't see my earlier post in which I took my lumps and admitted that I was wrong. I even deleted my post. Go back and read it before making more "pile-on" comments please. You seem to have major issues with a LOT of people in this thread for voicing opinions (some wrong info)--but your huge posts quoting and scolding members (I bet it's a common theme in your post history...I'll have to check that one) says a lot about you. You picked the perfect screen name, as it is obvious you truly believe you are The bigger hammer" ("biggest" would have been more accurate as to your approach to people. I bet you are a real delight to be around. Glad you're hundreds & hundreds of miles away from me!


EDIT: My GOD!! SIXTY-ONE (61 ...and counting!!) posts in this one thread alone - most are scolding other members! REALLY? That's just.....wow..... ....And YEP, I was right. Looking into your post history here, the above is nothing new. THREE (3) pages - over 100 posts - ALONE in the kid w/toy AK killed by police thread.....WOW! THAT must be some kind of record! (And I would put money on the probability that the thread was locked - in a BIG way - due to you).

[jamesob]

Yep, there WAS a knife at the scene. In these sorts of incidents, weapons are often NOT found in suspect's hands. We found a gun fired by the suspect, on the roof of a nearby building, in one such incident.

AGAIN we see the lack of knowledge of the dynamics of these situations.

i worked patrol from 2002-2007 in a very small immigrant town in central cal. the town was full of runners, so everytime you did come across a "wanted parolee" they did run. i showed this to a friend of mine who is a lt. for a local p.d and he said is was iffy. one could justify and others could not justify the shooting. i personally would rather take a few steps back and process it better before i ended anyones life, even a gangbangin felon. but all this bickering over a questionable shooting isnt changing my mind or yours. when it comes down to trial and more than likely it will under for violating his civil rights, there is a very good chance the officer will be convicted.

[bigger hammer]

For Doug...
You can see the difference in this vid on how well FA handles in an M4 versus what we used to carry back in the day.

Jason, that is quite impossible. It must be either trick photography or photoshopped. Doug has told us repeatedly that this can't be done. Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or Doug?

[bigger hammer]

As far as the shooting, we disagree. That's fine. I don't see how the "small pocket knife" could have flown and landed in the bed of the truck without it being visible - as well as the metal-on-metal audio - from the dash cam. Nowhere in that film is it possible that a pocket knife flew up into the air and into the bed of the truck.

I used to think this sort of thing too. But then I learned a bit. Did you know that a video, like a movie is a series of still photos put together? With film that rate is usually 25 frames/second, but instead of 25 individual photos, your brain sees, a smooth rendition of those 25 photos, making it look as if the actors are moving. I'd bet that you've seen high speed of film of bullets hitting things, drops of water splashing into glasses of water, car crashes and the like. There are all sorts of things that are seen in such videos that are completely missed in movies or real life. They happen too fast to be recorded by our brain at real speed. If you'll go through this video (or any video for that matter) frame by frame, instead of trying to judge the entire thing in real time, you'll see all sorts of things that happened too fast for your brain to register.

If you'll watch the video again, and randomly hit the stop button, at a particular time several times, you'll see what are many different views of the same second. If you were to cut and paste that video into video editing software you could play it one frame at a time, giving you a much better view of what's going on. (Note: I haven't done this, I'm packing for a two day trip out of town and won't have time until I get back to do it. If this thread is still open by then, perhaps I will). Ever seen any of the magic shows, either live or on TV, Chris Angel and the like? All sorts of things are going on right in front of you, that you are not seeing.

In addition to this, there's a phenomenon called Selective Attention where you may not see things that are right in front of you. EVER SEEN THIS VIDEO? It's called The Selective Attention Test. See if you can count how many times the people wearing white pass the basketball. To make the test accurate, please don't read any of the notes on the video until AFTER you watch it and count the number of passes. (If you've seen this before, please don't give away the secret). Many people after taking this simple test are too embarrassed by the results to admit that they got the pass count wrong.

And I don't see how the last 2-3 shots - that were fired at a much slower rate than the initial 3-4 - after the suspect was down and no longer a threat (especially that last shot to the back) can be justified as anything but a deliberate kill.

I'd suggest that if you want to understand this, that you head over to the Force Science Institute website. http://www.forcescience.org/articles.html You can subscribe (it's free) to their newsletter that discusses the articles as they're published. They're Studying the Science & Human Dynamics Behind Deadly Force Encounters. There are things that occur, that if you don't see them for yourself, you won't believe are going on, during deadly force situations. Adrenalin is a wonderful drug and it's amazing how it affects the body.

Even LEO's in this thread say themselves that it was a "bad shoot" - and I fully agree with that.

I think that so far ONLY ONE LEO, jamesob has taken such a position, not as you say, "LEO's." I used to think many such things as he mention too, until I enlightened myself.

But, again that's my opinion that I am entitled to and we disagree. This thread is full of "disagreement." This type of thing (agreement/disagreement) is old news here at Calguns.

Yes it is and usually it's a matter of a lay opinion, as yours is, v. the opinion of an expert, as mine is. I'm recognized as an SME (Subject Matter Expert) on many kinds of uses of force. I've testified as such many times in municipal and superior courts. I used to work on a team that investigated all instances of liability that accrue to a city.

As far as the other topic, maybe you didn't see my earlier post in which I took my lumps and admitted that I was wrong. I even deleted my post.

You're right. I didn't see that until after I posted. You are to be congratulated for being a big enough man to admit that you were wrong. Most won't. They'll just ignore that it's been shown, and pretend that it never happened.

You seem to have major issues with a LOT of people in this thread for voicing opinions (some wrong info)

You're right again. I do have issues when people pile on against LEOs who have done the right thing, as I (AND the DA, AND his department) agree about the Duenez incident. I also find it quite irritating when people spread FUD in any form. This is an area that I DO know about and that many argue based on their emotions, not the facts of the incident. In such discussions you'll usually find lots of people making assumptions based on nothing but their emotions, then jumping to conclusions, based on those assumptions. This does nothing to reveal the facts of the case, in fact some folks get lost in the emotions and NEVER come to the facts. How vehemently has Sacto Doug argued that select−fire on 'Full' is uncontrollable? And then Jason posts a video showing how it's done! Doug wasn't lying, he just didn't know that he didn't know. His experience, from over 20 years ago was out of date, but he wouldn't admit it!

--but your huge posts quoting and scolding members (I bet it's a common theme in your post history...I'll have to check that one) says a lot about you.

What do you think that it says "about [me?]"

I don't think that "scolding" is the appropriate term. I think that CORRECTING would be. Lots of misinformation from lots of people that I CORRECT. People are entitled to their own opinion, but they are NOT entitled to their own facts, and that where many people go wrong. Just one example, Doug and I went back and forth REPEATEDLY, with him telling me that control on FA was "impossible" and me replying that it was not, before Jason found a video that proved my point? I'd bet that there were half a dozen posts or more, from each of us, with an occasional other member joining him. I’m sorry that I have more experience at some things than some other members, but I've been around for a long time and did lots of things in my 30 years in LE. I don't have all the answer, I just know a few things. But those "few things" I do know.

Long posts and quoting others has always been my MO. I think that if you're going to take the time to put your thoughts down on "paper," then the least I can do is to look at each one of them. I've found that people who respond to a post with a paragraph of writing often MISS statements in the post that they're responding to. They MISS questions that are asked of them that would clarify the situation. Sometimes they do that intentionally to avoid having to answer a question that they realize will disprove their point, show their inexperience, and/or embarrass them. I think that I've asked you a couple of questions that you've not answered that I think fall into these categories. My way of doing it, ensures that each thought gets a response and each question gets answered. I know that it's a PITA to read, and I wish that I had the skill that some other forum members have, that allows them to be succinct, but I just don't have the talent.

You picked the perfect screen name, as it is obvious you truly believe you are The bigger hammer" ("biggest" would have been more accurate as to your approach to people.

The screen name is sarcasm based on the erroneous thinking that the answer to every mechanical problem is a "bigger hammer." Too subtle for some it appears.

I bet you are a real delight to be around.

Like everyone else, sometimes I am, and sometimes I'm not. But I've never been interested in popularity contests. If I was, I'd never have gone into law enforcement. I'm more interested in dealing with facts. I'm more a 'Joe Friday' kinda guy, than a glad−hander. And I understand that the feeling that come from being shown to be wrong over and over, can get on one's nerves and make them a bit short tempered. Not to worry, I understand how you feel.

Glad you're hundreds & hundreds of miles away from me!

It's good that you have time for the personal insults. I've knocked enough holes in your arguments that I don't feel a need to respond in kind. Feel better now?

Just saw your edit before I posted this.

EDIT: My GOD!! SIXTY-ONE (61 ...and counting!!) posts in this one thread alone - most are scolding other members! REALLY? That's just.....wow..... ....And YEP, I was right. Looking into your post history here, the above is nothing new.

Yes, I know. I wrote about it before you posted this part.

THREE (3) pages - over 100 posts - ALONE in the kid w/toy AK killed by police thread.....WOW! THAT must be some kind of record!

Perhaps it is a record. Do I win a prize? In any case, it's a sign that I have too much spare time, that I don't suffer fools lightly, and that when I feel strongly about something, I take the time to show how and why people are wrong and how they allow their emotions to color their thoughts.

(And I would put money on the probability that the thread was locked - in a BIG way - due to you).

I'd suggest that instead of useless (and IMO wrong) conjecture based on your personal dislike of me (EMOTIONS again, rather than facts) that you actually go to that thread and see how some people degraded it at the end. HERE'S A LINK TO THE LAST PAGE.

If you want to know why a given thread was closed, I suggest that instead of MORE GUESSING, that you ask a moderator.

And finally, if you don't like the way that I write, or the comments that I make, feel free to pass my posts by. My feelings won't be hurt in the slightest. This forum has an ignore feature that will make it easy for you. Or you could merely buy yourself some will power and pass them by yourself. Meanwhile, when you spout your nonsense as you've done here, I'll show the members where you're mistaken.

[bigger hammer]

i worked patrol from 2002-2007 in a very small immigrant town in central cal.

the town was full of runners, so everytime you did come across a "wanted parolee" they did run.

I don't doubt that's your experience. As we've seen, it's quite limited.

i showed this to a friend of mine who is a lt. for a local p.d and he said is was iffy. one could justify and others could not justify the shooting.

Opinions will vary. Some LEOs are quite conservative. Others are more aggressive. As always, the situation will be judged based on what a reasonable police officer knew at the moment he pulled the trigger.

i personally would rather take a few steps back and process it better before i ended anyones life, even a gangbangin felon.

Elsewhere I've written about an officer that I knew that did nothing when a mentally disturbed person who had been threatening shoppers at a mall with a very large pair of dress makers shears approached within inches of him with the shears held in an ice pick grip over the officer's head. He did nothing, didn't even put up his arms to block, and the guy just walked away. He could have been killed in about the time that it takes to blink. Turns out that he was one of those guys who had decided that he'd never take a life, no matter what! We discovered that there were lots of these close pacifists around. Then we started weeding them out at the orals.

but all this bickering over a questionable shooting isnt changing my mind or yours.

It rarely does.

when it comes down to trial and more than likely it will under for violating his civil rights, there is a very good chance the officer will be convicted.

I doubt that it will go to a civil rights violation trial. I haven't heard any drums that signal this, and usually if they're silent, it's not gonna happen. There is a lawsuit underway and I doubt that the officer or his department will lose. I'd bet that they settle out of court for a minor sum.