Woman with a Fake Handgun gets Shot by Long Beach Police (Graphic)

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

I'm sure that highbrass, being the expert tactician and sublime shooter that he is (in his own universe, wherever that is) would have simply shot it from her hand or perhaps magically caused the gun to turn into a pink unicorn turd.

Another one for the ignore list!

[brandon1234]

Inexcusable attempted murder.

From the distance of the camera, let alone the distance to the police, she could have been flash-banged, tear-gassed, tasered, shot with a frangible round, etc.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we tolerate police who shoot citizens.

Regaining Freedom is a long way off in America.

These kind of statements make me sick!! Non if us have any idea what it is like in these officers shoes. They negotiated with her for over an hour.!! She came towards them with gun in Hand and pointed in there direction!!! You are an idiot for saying this.

[POLICESTATE]

These kind of statements make me sick!! Non if us have any idea what it is like in these officers shoes. They negotiated with her for over an hour.!! She came towards them with gun in Hand and pointed in there direction!!! You are an idiot for saying this.

And this is just another example of soft-on-crime BS that we have here now. An HOUR? Really? Why not simply say, "You have until I count to 10 to drop the gun or we shoot you. Don't make any sudden moves just put the gun down. I'm counting now... 1... 2... 3..."

That's more than enough time to decide you are going to comply or get shot.

[alfred1222]

Inexcusable attempted murder.

From the distance of the camera, let alone the distance to the police, she could have been flash-banged, tear-gassed, tasered, shot with a frangible round, etc.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we tolerate police who shoot citizens.

Regaining Freedom is a long way off in America.

Meth is one hell of a drug, isnt it high brass?? Only serious, extended periods of drug use can cause someone to be as delusional as you are right now. Unless you've been in a dynamic situation where you have a gun pointed at you, i dont think you have the right to criticize the police involved. They have a job to do, a job that has a pretty specific ROE, and from what i can see, they followed it to the letter. Good shoot IMHO

[Napoleon]

These kind of statements make me sick!! Non if us have any idea what it is like in these officers shoes. They negotiated with her for over an hour.!! She came towards them with gun in Hand and pointed in there direction!!! You are an idiot for saying this.

He is mostly right.

Local PD's are receiving millions of dollars for gear and "training", and time and time again those are misused or not applied to the correct scenarios. To think that 1 round she may gotten off if hit with a Less than lethal round or water cannon is somehow more dangerous than the thousands of grains they just sprayed into an apartment building is ludicrous.

This wasn't one man in a split second decision, they had time and resources to come up with a better solution to serve the public.

All they are doing is setting precedents for UOF, just wait till you get popped in the gut for standing at your front door because you have firearms registered to you.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/john-geer-shot-by-police/

The blatant disregard for public safety over "officer safety" is a real issue.

[IrishJoe3]

Inexcusable attempted murder.

From the distance of the camera, let alone the distance to the police, she could have been flash-banged, tear-gassed, tasered, shot with a frangible round, etc.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we tolerate police who shoot citizens.

Regaining Freedom is a long way off in America.

Or they could have just grabbed the gun with chain mail gloves. Or offered her ice cream.

[TRICKSTER]

Or they could have just grabbed the gun with chain mail gloves. Or offered her ice cream.

Or thrown pillows at her feet and a blanket over her head. If she was getting too close, why didn't they just use a mop to push her back.

[IrishJoe3]

[WyattandDoc]

Dude, where have you been?

I've called and texted you a few times.

Cody, Please call the guy already so you both can talk about some other things you know NOTHING about.

[IrishJoe3]

I counted like 16 shots and she just kind of fell over. I think one 12ga bean bag round would have put her down sooner.

-Cody

Nope. I've seen someone fight through an entire tube of beanbags from an 870. Torso hits at less than 10'.

Besides....less lethal force is utilized up until lethal force is necessary. And the two don't mix.

[NoJoke]

I'm going through questions in my mind that I would imagine are asked of any self defensive shooting by a private citizen:
"Did you feel you life was being seriously threatened?"

That was some slow motion advancement and kinda, sorta presentation of the gun, possibly...????

Seems as if there could have been other options available to officers....yeah, I know, arm-chair quarterback and all, just saying....

[WyattandDoc]

Shout, Shove, Show, Shoot. Those where our rules of engagement with detainees while in combat....Fire only aimed shots ( no suppressive fire), no more rounds than necessary, avoid bystanders, don't destroy property, stop firing as soon as the situation permits.

In military situations, we detect, decide to engage / use non lethal weapons to determine intent, attempt to delay / reengage with non lethal weapons, deny movement / attempt to deny with Non lethal weapons, then move to warning shots, and if intent requires lethal weapons, use accordingly. Interesting to see that military in combat is required to demonstrate more patience in dealing with foreign possible combatants than police exhibit with our own citizens.

I could link the documents or list the appropriate ROE's that applied in COMBAT, but the point would be moot.

Technically, all LE typically cares about is that it is a "good shoot" having a minimal threshold. In the US, deadly force may be used by police against a person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. That said, the controlling case is mainly Tennessee vs Gamer, where "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." "I was afraid for my life", would say officer flatfoot, and that is all that'd needed. Open and shot.

No car was involved so the Scott v Harris case doesn't apply here.

All y'all spend all of this money to promote officer safety, from Bulletproof Shields to Lenco Bears, LRADs and Beanbags - but why bother using it? Much easier to end it since deadly force is legally warranted - she did, after all, have some sort of a "gun", fake or otherwise, the officer behind his vehicle "feared for his life", so why not shoot her and be home in time for dinner?

Stay out of my fox hole. If you use Non-Lethal to determine intent, you're wrong. Intent is determined as soon as the person points a weapon at you.

[IrishJoe3]

I'm going through questions in my mind that I would imagine are asked of any self defensive shooting by a private citizen:
"Did you feel you life was being seriously threatened?"

That was some slow motion advancement and kinda, sorta presentation of the gun, possibly...????

Seems as if there could have been other options available to officers....yeah, I know, arm-chair quarterback and all, just saying....

Like.....what?

Where is the line? Is it when the gun is drawn and held to the side? Is it when it is lifted 20 degrees? Is it when its lifted 35 degrees? Is it when its lifted 45 degrees? Is it when it lifted 90 degrees? Is it when she fires a round? (In which case your buddies would have to shoot her because you're dead...)

Someone starts advancing on me with a gun, disregarding all orders and attempts at negotiation, and starts to bring that gun to bear on me. Sorry, you forfeit your life. You don't get the benefit of the doubt at that point.

[IrishJoe3]

Stay out of my fox hole. If you use Non-Lethal to determine intent, you're wrong. Intent is determined as soon as the person points a weapon at you.

And mine.

[IrishJoe3]

Shout, Shove, Show, Shoot. Those where our rules of engagement with detainees while in combat....Fire only aimed shots ( no suppressive fire), no more rounds than necessary, avoid bystanders, don't destroy property, stop firing as soon as the situation permits.

So...from that perspective....analyze this shooting.

They SHOUTED at her to drop the gun, and went well beyond that by getting a mental health specialist involved. For over an hour.

They SHOWED force by aiming weapons at her.

They fired ONLY AIMED SHOTs at a legitimate threat, there was no suppressive fire, and they only fired the minimal number necessary, as they stopped shooting before she even hit the ground.

No bystanders hit and no property damaged.

So tell me again what you're complaining about?