TexasCHLforum.com

Police and the OODA loop.
Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYSsCaUFexw

Awesome video! Basically proves what most of us have been repeating since probably 2013.

george wrote:I understand, and I was unable to shoot first in the video, and I did shoot the guy with the cell phone the third time.

But this makes it look too black or white. There are other options?

While the guy is turning to the car, I could move off axis. Which would give me more time to decide (I would not be where he expects me to be).

Or, i could get closer, which would allow me to deflect his arm and club him.

Or, I could Taze him when he heads for the car.

I am not a cop, and have never been in this situation.

I was a COP for 10 years and what you describe is not realistic and quite dangerous. Moving to cover does not buy you more time. It may provide some cover, but not more time. If you wait to see a gun, then "cover" doesn't reduce your reaction time. It may make it harder for your attacker to hit you, but you are still going to be facing incoming fire. Also, while moving to cover, your focus would be at least somewhat diverted, of not majorly so.

Closing on the subject to "deflect his arm and club him" would get you fired if not killed. No one in their right mind would close on a threat under the scenario presented. You would be doing so with only one hand to use in a physical altercation because your strong hand would be holding your handgun. At best, you would be fighting for the gun in your own hand and at worst, you each may have a gun in your hands engaging in a Hollywood-style wrestling match where looser dies.

People put far too much faith in Tasers. While the company initially pitched them as an alternative to the use of deadly force, they are not reliable enough to put your life on the line. If the Taser fails to stop the assailant, then the officer probably does not have sufficient time to draw his weapon in self-defense.

Chas.

It is interesting that he says he set up a situation similar to the Tulsa shooting and then changed a very fundamental part of that scenario by having the vehicle window down. That difference completely changes the scenario.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It is interesting that he says he set up a situation similar to the Tulsa shooting and then changed a very fundamental part of that scenario by having the vehicle window down. That difference completely changes the scenario.

I think he was referring to the officer's perception. Yes, in Tulsa, the officer fired before the man put his hands in the truck, but that's the point of the video. If you wait too long, then you're waited too long for the last time in your life.

Chas.

It all boils down to compliance. If you are staring down an officer's firearm then do what they say and your chances of being shot are minimal. Why people choose to disobey officers commands while being held at gunpoint I'll never understand. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Even if you know for a fact the officer is in the wrong and this is an unlawful arrest just comply and live to take advantage of your constitutional right to trial.

Tasers are a great tool but people believe they are as powerful as the hammer of Thor. In the winter when people wear thick clothing and jackets the probs cannot make good contact with skin resulting in a minimal effect if any at all. If you miss or get a short spread it all effects the shock on the person.

There are NUMEROUS videos on youtube where people are hit with a taser on bare skin, and it does not even seem to slow them down. It comes down to threat/risk analysis. And in a life or death situation, you have a couple of seconds (if you're lucky) to OODA. I do not envy the life and death decisions that police have to make day in and day out, and I hope the day never comes that I have to make that call myself.

As far as complying with instructions, I don't know about this particular situation, but I have seen videos and heard reports of multiple officers with weapons drawn and all yelling different commands at the same time ("drop the weapon"; "get on the ground"; show me your hands"; etc.). Granted, all good, valid commands. But if you were the (lets say innocent) guy being yelled at, in what is obviously a high stress situation, hearing different commands simultaneously- assuming you could make out what was being said- I can see how it would add even more stress and confusion to the situation.

So then if you comply with one officer's command (say, "put down the gun") and you begin to do that, but then another officer from another angle was telling you to do something different ("show me your hands" for example) and you make a move to comply with one command, but another officer sees that move as something different from what he commanded, then things could get real bad, real fast.

Don't know the solution to that problem. Maybe establish protocol where l my one officer issues commands, instead of coming from multiple officers. Or maybe they do that now already?

Anything that would help avoid confusion with the person being commanded and with the multiple off I ers themselves would have to be helpful, I would think.

thatguyoverthere wrote:As far as complying with instructions, I don't know about this particular situation, but I have seen videos and heard reports of multiple officers with weapons drawn and all yelling different commands at the same time ("drop the weapon"; "get on the ground"; show me your hands"; etc.). Granted, all good, valid commands. But if you were the (lets say innocent) guy being yelled at, in what is obviously a high stress situation, hearing different commands simultaneously- assuming you could make out what was being said- I can see how it would add even more stress and confusion to the situation.

So then if you comply with one officer's command (say, "put down the gun") and you begin to do that, but then another officer from another angle was telling you to do something different ("show me your hands" for example) and you make a move to comply with one command, but another officer sees that move as something different from what he commanded, then things could get real bad, real fast.

Don't know the solution to that problem. Maybe establish protocol where l my one officer issues commands, instead of coming from multiple officers. Or maybe they do that now already?

Anything that would help avoid confusion with the person being commanded and with the multiple off I ers themselves would have to be helpful, I would think.

First instinct if an officer points a firearm at you should always be to stop immediately and put your empty hands straight up. If you can't understand what the officer(s) is (are) yelling at you then you should stand still with your hands up until they stop yelling.

Of course the suspect in Tulsa was on PCP and allegedly had PCP in the front seat of his car. Even though he may have had no intent to harm the officer(s). His first instinct may have been "hide the drugs... can't afford to go to jail again."

It appears that his instinct was CYB (cover your backside). This is emblematic of the problem with community relations (and even more so with race relations) and Law Enforcement. Even if this guy weren't on drugs, the fact that he's being engaged by Law Enforcement likely causes him to go into CYB mode. Often times just the sight of police will make even a law abiding person self-assess whether or not they are guilty of something. It took me years to break the habit of slowing my car down when I saw a cop, even if I was not speeding. And having a police car behind me can still make me wonder if he caught me making an accidental illegal lane change/turn/etc. or having a light burned out or expired registration or something. But now going on 7+ years of not being stopped by Law Enforcement, I definitely don't get as concerned about being stopped.

thatguyoverthere wrote:As far as complying with instructions, I don't know about this particular situation, but I have seen videos and heard reports of multiple officers with weapons drawn and all yelling different commands at the same time ("drop the weapon"; "get on the ground"; show me your hands"; etc.). Granted, all good, valid commands. But if you were the (lets say innocent) guy being yelled at, in what is obviously a high stress situation, hearing different commands simultaneously- assuming you could make out what was being said- I can see how it would add even more stress and confusion to the situation.

So then if you comply with one officer's command (say, "put down the gun") and you begin to do that, but then another officer from another angle was telling you to do something different ("show me your hands" for example) and you make a move to comply with one command, but another officer sees that move as something different from what he commanded, then things could get real bad, real fast.

Don't know the solution to that problem. Maybe establish protocol where l my one officer issues commands, instead of coming from multiple officers. Or maybe they do that now already?

Anything that would help avoid confusion with the person being commanded and with the multiple off I ers themselves would have to be helpful, I would think.

If a Hispanic man who doesn't speak a word of English can figure out what to do when an officer is drawing down on him than anyone can too. Drop what you have in your hand, hands up, get on the ground.

nightmare69 wrote:If a Hispanic man who doesn't speak a word of English can figure out what to do when an officer is drawing down on him than anyone can too. Drop what you have in your hand, hands up, get on the ground.

If any of us ever find ourselves in that situation, I sincerely hope that it is just that simple and straightforward, my friend. I truly do.

thatguyoverthere wrote:As far as complying with instructions, I don't know about this particular situation, but I have seen videos and heard reports of multiple officers with weapons drawn and all yelling different commands at the same time ("drop the weapon"; "get on the ground"; show me your hands"; etc.). Granted, all good, valid commands. But if you were the (lets say innocent) guy being yelled at, in what is obviously a high stress situation, hearing different commands simultaneously- assuming you could make out what was being said- I can see how it would add even more stress and confusion to the situation.

So then if you comply with one officer's command (say, "put down the gun") and you begin to do that, but then another officer from another angle was telling you to do something different ("show me your hands" for example) and you make a move to comply with one command, but another officer sees that move as something different from what he commanded, then things could get real bad, real fast.

Don't know the solution to that problem. Maybe establish protocol where l my one officer issues commands, instead of coming from multiple officers. Or maybe they do that now already?

Anything that would help avoid confusion with the person being commanded and with the multiple off I ers themselves would have to be helpful, I would think.

To an extent, this would be handled by the contact / cover protocol that virtually every department uses. Even without that in place, generally, commands are going to follow a logical sequence: empty your hands, show me your empty hands, then get them in a position to be cuffed (on the ground, hands on the hood of the car, etc) every cop on scene can instantly know where in that sequence you are by your verbal commands and can then make sure that they are not making contradictory commands.

But I'm not a cop.

Im going to be honest, i pulled my imaginary trigger when he pulled out the phone.

But im not a cop either, i just comply.

I don't think the problem is so much that cops shoot unarmed citizens, It is a pretty rare event. The problem is the coverup or slowness of explaining what happened. The incident in Florida where they shot the caretaker of the autistic guy. The Department went into a spread lies, cover up and deny mode. I don't know about other citizens once someone lies to me they lost my trust. Onbody cameras and quick release of the video to the public will help build trust and confidence and the willingnes to accept blame. Legal liability is noit as important as the public trust. Once you lose this trust the Dep[artment no longer has any purpose.

I think that the police need to actually work with the community and the citizens they are supposed to help and serve. The trust and confidence in the department has to be built before the unfortunate incidents. Fergusson is a classic example. Not only did most of the people hate the department, The Department didn't have much love for the people it was supposed to serve. The shooting of Michael Brown just lit the fuse of an existing explosive situation, facts didn't matter they hated the cops. They hated the cops because they were seen as the enemy. Ticketed them harassed them and the average citizen didn't see much protection from the department. The city and the department did very little to improve the community relations. The Black citizens did very little to participate and understand their local government. Ferguson was a powder keg just waiting for the match to be lit.