Spyderco Forums

There are two things here that seal the fate of the officer:

1.) Like already mentioned ... Why did he have his weapon already drawn??? Regardless of what the history of the man was. The public will view that certain aspect as an aggressive action on the officer's part.

2.) The officer fired 5 rounds... 4 rounds hit the man. Where did that 5th round go??? As an officer and using Deadly Force, the officer is responsible for every shot he fires and where it ends up at. Public, Moderate Traffic, Citizens in the immediate area ... LIABILITY BIG TIME!!!

There are so many things to look at. The gentleman walking across the street didn't appear to be using the knife in an aggrerssive manner or appeared to be threatening anybody. People walked ahead of him and behind him and didn't appear to be alarmed in anyway???

The history of the gentleman. If Birk had prior contact with the man and knew his history ... Why Didn't He Call for Backup??? As fast as the other officers arrived on scene, it was obvious backup wasn't to far away.

I'm sorry I don't like to put down a fellow officer, but it appears he made a REALLY Bad Call on his part and should've waited for backup. Had he had to use deadly force in a situation where a fellow officer was present ...he would've had a good witness to what took place and the actions of the man. The dash cam only shows him approaching the man with his weapon drawn, then the all we have is the audio. We hear commands given, and the firing of 5 shots. We have no idea what happened outside the view of the dash cam. It leaves things lingering in the imagination of whoever views it and listens to it. The whole situation just wend SIDEWAYS as soon as the officer is seen exiting his patrol unit with his weapon drawn??? I really feel for him.

This is just my point of view of being an LEO and having experienced some of this. It's not etched in stone . Other LEOs will have their own opinions and views. Take Good Care All and Be Safe Always.

God Bless :)


-raven-

As Raven said, the officer fired 5 rounds hitting the man 4 times so where did the 5th bullet go? Also, I have a 9mm pistol and have fired bullets completely through a pressure treated 4x4" post. Actually that is 3.5" of solid wood. So, even the 4 rounds that hit the man probably went completely through him but where did they go then? I've wondered about this for years. How can police officers carry handguns in a crowded city? If a bullet hits a person and doesn't hit bone I'm pretty sure the bullet will continue as if it hadn't hit anything. I don't know very much about guns but hunted quite a bit when I was young and was trained on the M16. I'm not thinking as much about this one incident as I am the issue of bullets traveling through a crowded city. It's not like they only go one block or so either. I remember as a kid learning a .22 cal. long rifle bullet will go almost one mile. I would like to hear from LEOs how they are trained about this. Shotguns have impact rounds (or whatever they are called) that should only stun a person taking him down with non-lethal force.

Jack

We as LEO follow the basic firearm safety rules. The biggest when a LEO has to use deadly force... Be Aware Of Your Target and WHAT'S BEYOND.

True some rounds will continue through a target, but LEO are issued hollowed point ammo that's supposed to "mushroom". This is what causes major organ damage and hemmoraging or what we call terminal ballistics. The majority of hollow point ammo will not penetrate a body, but anything can happen :rolleyes: . The majority of rounds that do exit a body are depends on velocity, caliber, type of ammo, and range. I can say almost any round fired into a body with ammo that's a full metal jacket or ball ammo ...will exit. Hope that helps some. Take Good Care and Be Safe Always.

BTW, Ballistics is a science and can often times be hard to explain and understand :o .

God Bless :)


-raven-

jackknifeh wrote:As Raven said, the officer fired 5 rounds hitting the man 4 times so where did the 5th bullet go? Also, I have a 9mm pistol and have fired bullets completely through a pressure treated 4x4" post. Actually that is 3.5" of solid wood. So, even the 4 rounds that hit the man probably went completely through him but where did they go then? I've wondered about this for years. How can police officers carry handguns in a crowded city? If a bullet hits a person and doesn't hit bone I'm pretty sure the bullet will continue as if it hadn't hit anything. I don't know very much about guns but hunted quite a bit when I was young and was trained on the M16. I'm not thinking as much about this one incident as I am the issue of bullets traveling through a crowded city. It's not like they only go one block or so either. I remember as a kid learning a .22 cal. long rifle bullet will go almost one mile. I would like to hear from LEOs how they are trained about this. Shotguns have impact rounds (or whatever they are called) that should only stun a person taking him down with non-lethal force.

Jack

What kind of ammo/bullets were you using when you did that.

Your statements may well be based on your experience, but the FBI has done extensive testing on bullets, ammo, and their ballistics. Modern defensive ammo is designed to penetrate while not over penetrating. A lot of people get caught up in worrying about too much penetration, and ignore that if it doesn't penetrate enough, then it won't stop the threat. Less lethal weapons and rounds are just that. "Less lethal". A lot of people don't seem to grasp that force is still force, and it must be justified. When a gun is justified is no time to explore less lethal options. It's either a good shoot, or it isn't. I don't know about a 9mm Gold Dot going through and through a 4 x 4. I'll have to try it next time I'm at the range.

You might want to do a little research on such things if you have those concerns. That will give you some insight on the concerns you express. Most modern defensive handgun ammo is designed to dump most (if not all) of it's energy inside the intended target. Most agencies use such ammo.

Just out of curiosity, if you "don't know much about guns...", then how can you feel comfortable postulating on what you "think" will happen? Is it just that you are so passoniate about the topic that you don't care to research the facts before you make such statements? Is it that the message is more important (ends justifies the means)? Or is it something else. Just curious.

Thanks Raven for you insight as an LEO. I know a thing or two about RAS/PC to a stop, but also realize that the press reports don't always get the information correct. We really don't know what was going through that officer's mind that made him believe the situation warranted deadly force. Tragedy all the way around IMHO.

ghostrider wrote:Thanks Raven for you insight as an LEO. I know a thing or two about RAS/PC to a stop, but also realize that the press reports don't always get the information correct. We really don't know what was going through that officer's mind that made him believe the situation warranted deadly force. Tragedy all the way around IMHO.

You are most welcome brother and +1 on it being a tragedy all the way around . Depending on the outcome of the investigation ... it could be that 2 people lost their lives??? The guy that got shot and the officer ending his career and possibly put in prison.

BTW, As for my insight... nowhere near being an expert, but seen enough of What Not To Do or How Not To React. Such a VERY FINE LINE to walk. Take Good Care and Be Safe Always.

God Bless :)


-raven-

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-dash-ca ... 2992.story

Thought this was interesting. Doesn't necessarily change anything about the shooting, but I'd say it trashes the whole "he never bothered or threatened anybody" theory.

The inquest is set for Jan. 10th. Should be informative.

Jordan wrote:http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-dash-ca ... 2992.story

Thought this was interesting. Doesn't necessarily change anything about the shooting, but I'd say it trashes the whole "he never bothered or threatened anybody" theory.

And I would disagree completely. These people talk trash 24/7 and if you can't hack that, then you shouldn't a cop. Ask any officer with anything approaching "veteran" status, they will tell you that they get threatened by drunks and bums all of the time, if not daily.

Lethal force justification isn't about "what they said or did last week", it's about what is happening right that second. If you don't have means, jeopardy, and opportunity all at once then you are not justified in shooting a suspect. Full Stop.

Perhaps you misunderstood. When I wrote, "Doesn't necessarily change anything about the shooting," I meant, "Doesn't necessarily change anything about the shooting." I've already commented with regards to my beliefs about the culpability of the officer here. I believe that the "victim" was an armed drunk felon and that if the officer who shot him says he posed a threat... he probably did. I'll even freely admit that I am biased on the issue... I have trouble mustering up sympathy for criminals and people who refuse to obtain gainful employment. Most here disagree, free country, somebody else makes the call anyway... it's all just interesting debate for me.

I posted the video because a number of the articles about the shooting have friends of the deceased claiming that he was basically benign. This video shows definitively that he, in fact, was at the very least unstable and prone to making threats.

I would venture to guess that if you talked to an officer approaching veteran status... he would also tell you that sometimes they don't just get threatened by drunks and bums. I would guess that sometimes people with nothing to lose make good, or try to, on threats.

I have a passing acquaintance with the use of deadly force... it is an issue that has come up once or twice in my line of work. :-P Now, you said that means, jeopardy, and opportunity have to be present for lethal force to be justified. Well, he had a knife that he did not relinquish on command (means), he had a history of mental instability amongst other less savory affectations (jeopardy), and he was within striking range of half a dozen people including the police officer when he was shot (opportunity). Sounds like a righteous shoot to me. Do I know for sure? Nope. All that was mostly just to demonstrate that the policeman's guilt is NOT A SURE THING. The dash cam showed like 4 seconds of the dude crossing the street, everything else happened off screen. Any faith I have I reserve for the police officer rather than the drunken felon. As if you required permission or something... you may all feel free to interpret as you like :-P. I really am looking forward to the results of the inquest though... this issue has definitely piqued my interest, and obviously it is an incredibly emotional issue for a lot of people. I hope that it brings an acceptable amount of closure with it.

All the usual disclaimers apply... I mean no offense, I calls em' like I sees em, the only good bugs a dead bug, for entertainment purposes only, etc. etc. :)

Poke even the gentlest dog with a stick often enough and it may snarl at you. Now I'm not suggesting that Williams was the gentlest of people. He probably was your average ill mannered ill tempered wino. However, what I see in that video is a pattern of police harassment, with one officer even bragging to his partner about how he did it every chance he got with a camera recording his confession. Is that considered acceptable behavior for LEO's in Seattle? On one, and only one, occasion the harassment drew what I would classify as a mildly annoyed verbal response from Williams. If that's the best justification they can come up with, it's pretty darn thin. Or are you suggesting that, perhaps in response to prior harassment by Birk, that Williams actually turned and lunged at him without uttering a word? Sorry, not buying it.

Jordan wrote:...
I would venture to guess that if you talked to an officer approaching veteran status... he would also tell you that sometimes they don't just get threatened by drunks and bums. I would guess that sometimes people with nothing to lose make good, or try to, on threats.

I have a passing acquaintance with the use of deadly force... it is an issue that has come up once or twice in my line of work. :-P Now, you said that means, jeopardy, and opportunity have to be present for lethal force to be justified. Well, he had a knife that he did not relinquish on command (means), he had a history of mental instability amongst other less savory affectations (jeopardy), and he was within striking range of half a dozen people including the police officer when he was shot (opportunity). Sounds like a righteous shoot to me. Do I know for sure? Nope. All that was mostly just to demonstrate that the policeman's guilt is NOT A SURE THING. The dash cam showed like 4 seconds of the dude crossing the street, everything else happened off screen. Any faith I have I reserve for the police officer rather than the drunken felon. As if you required permission or something... you may all feel free to interpret as you like :-P. I really am looking forward to the results of the inquest though... this issue has definitely piqued my interest, and obviously it is an incredibly emotional issue for a lot of people. I hope that it brings an acceptable amount of closure with it.

All the usual disclaimers apply... I mean no offense, I calls em' like I sees em, the only good bugs a dead bug, for entertainment purposes only, etc. etc. :)

It would be interesting to read the police report on this one. Without actually knowing what the officer articulated as reasonable suspicion for the stop in the first place, it's difficult at best to claim any justification for the shooting. The cited article claimed it was just because the officer saw the deceased walking down the street, whittling on a piece of wood. I can't say for Washington, or Seattle law, but that doesn't exactly sound like a crime to me, and it certainly shouldn't be one. If that's the only reason he stopped the guy, then I find the whole thing very suspect.

If that is the reason the officer is claiming for the stop, then I would say that everything your bringing up is completely irrelevant, unless of course there is some law in that jurisdiction against whittling in public or some such.

I watched the video provided, and can't say it helps the officer as much as hurts him. It basically showed the person in other LE interactions, where the officers demonstrated not only a knowledge of the suspect, but also a lack of concern for officer safety during those encounters. IOW, they don't seem to think he is dangerous.

Again I'd like to see the police report on this one to know what the officer is articulating as his reasonable suspicion for the stop. I read in one of the linked stories that the department ruled it as unjustifiable, and if he didn't have legal RAS, then he should have the full force of the law brought on him, because it means he had no right to even stop the guy in the first place, let alone use deadly force (I'm guessing that's why they ruled it unjustified, but again with limited knowledge...). At any rate, I believe there just isn't enough info for us to say that it was wrong, but I definitely don't see anything justifying lethal force. More to the opposite based upon some of the video and stories, but then again, "what happened off camera."

Then again, homeless people are witness to lots of stuff happening on the streets. Who's to say there isn't a reason the officer got out of the car with gun drawn. Seattle PD doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation. I'd really like to read that report.

Jordan wrote: I posted the video because a number of the articles about the shooting have friends of the deceased claiming that he was basically benign. This video shows definitively that he, in fact, was at the very least unstable and prone to making threats.

I would venture to guess that if you talked to an officer approaching veteran status... he would also tell you that sometimes they don't just get threatened by drunks and bums. I would guess that sometimes people with nothing to lose make good, or try to, on threats.

Here's another article that mentions some of his arrests: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ms16m.html

I'm not law enforcement, but I am very familiar with homeless alcoholics. It's a horrible, mind and life destroying addiction, and many of the homeless addicts have mental health issues on top. They don't respond in ways we'd consider rational or normal, thanks to intoxication, mental illness, and brain damage from long term alcohol abuse and/or past trauma.

If I don't get at least one death threat, it was a slow week. They might not remember doing it the next day... but I and coworkers have had our vehicles vandalized, had people lay in wait for us... I've seen bums threaten other people with knives to try to get what they want, seem them throw chairs at people and through windows, lots of fists... heck, a few weeks ago I almost got hit when somebody threw a large heavy metal trash can through a window. It's not all talk.

Thing is, they aren't usually a life-safety threat to anybody but themselves, as long as you're on your toes dealing with them. People that they hurt tend to do so when they get too close or drop their guard. Could Williams have presented a threat to Officer Birk worthy of responding with lethal force? It seems unlikely. An active threat to the oblivious bystanders? Possibly, but again, unlikely, in this case.

If only he'd parked so the dash cam could have taken in the entire scene...

Seriously? “F***k you b**ch. I’ll f***ing kill you, all you police force,” is what you call a mildly annoyed verbal response? Fair enough... I guess...

Deacon, yes. I believe that it is entirely possible that Williams, in response to an earlier incident of some kind with the officer, attempted to attack him without a word. We differ on our definitions of harassment though. Williams was breaking the law. He got attention paid to him by the police... whose job it is to stop people from breaking the law. How many times do you think he was ticketed for being drunk in public when he was clean and sober? My guess is... none. I bet every time he got rousted by the police, or ticketed, or arrested, it was because he was breaking the law... not because he was being victimized by the police.

I do respect your interpretation of the evidence available to us... if you can't buy Williams attacking a policeman, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. By the same token, I don't buy the policeman committing murder in broad daylight on a busy street just for kicks. Especially considering the "victim".

raven wrote:There are two things here that seal the fate of the officer:

1.) Like already mentioned ... Why did he have his weapon already drawn??? Regardless of what the history of the man was. The public will view that certain aspect as an aggressive action on the officer's part.

2.) The officer fired 5 rounds... 4 rounds hit the man. Where did that 5th round go??? As an officer and using Deadly Force, the officer is responsible for every shot he fires and where it ends up at. Public, Moderate Traffic, Citizens in the immediate area ... LIABILITY BIG TIME!!!

There are so many things to look at. The gentleman walking across the street didn't appear to be using the knife in an aggrerssive manner or appeared to be threatening anybody. People walked ahead of him and behind him and didn't appear to be alarmed in anyway???

The history of the gentleman. If Birk had prior contact with the man and knew his history ... Why Didn't He Call for Backup??? As fast as the other officers arrived on scene, it was obvious backup wasn't to far away.

I'm sorry I don't like to put down a fellow officer, but it appears he made a REALLY Bad Call on his part and should've waited for backup. Had he had to use deadly force in a situation where a fellow officer was present ...he would've had a good witness to what took place and the actions of the man. The dash cam only shows him approaching the man with his weapon drawn, then the all we have is the audio. We hear commands given, and the firing of 5 shots. We have no idea what happened outside the view of the dash cam. It leaves things lingering in the imagination of whoever views it and listens to it. The whole situation just wend SIDEWAYS as soon as the officer is seen exiting his patrol unit with his weapon drawn??? I really feel for him.

This is just my point of view of being an LEO and having experienced some of this. It's not etched in stone . Other LEOs will have their own opinions and views. Take Good Care All and Be Safe Always.

God Bless :)


-raven-

Yes, I'm sure that other LEOS do have opinions. I really don't follow a lot of your logic on this one, though.

1. Why was his weapon drawn? Well, if the officer is driving down the street and sees a man who is known to be frequently combative and disorderly, and said man is carrying an open knife on a public street with pedestrians (i.e. potential victims) walking near him, I believe his weapon should have been out when he went to question the man. In fact, this is a standard scenario in much police academy training, including some of the officer survival courses I taught. The "apparently not doing anything but carrying a weapon" guy is frequently a subject in training. Standard doctrine in most LEO courses I have attended, taught, or written is to approach with your weapon out and aimed at the armed person. Action beats reaction, and you are behind the power curve if your weapon is in your holster.

2. 1 round missed. Four out of five rounds hitting a target in a close range gunfight is pretty good shooting by most LEO gunfight standards. In real life people miss. Having been in the game awhile and having been shot at more than once, investigated quite a few shootings (including officer involved shootings), and the occasional murder or two, I can say that I would not worry that much about the "missing bullet." You are liable for quite a bit when you put on a badge, and if he hit a busload of nuns coming from an orphanage with than bullet, he would be screwed, but firing or not firing is a judgment call. Once upon a time I did not return fire because my opponent was standing in front of an apartment complex, the range was long, and I had good cover. Also, the guy could not shoot worth a da#$. Had I been at extreme close range and with no cover, it might have been a different matter, despite who may or may not have been in the apartment. Having worked with a guy who had a couple of bullets pulled out of him and nearly died because he did not fire on an armed suspect due to being unsure of his backstop when shooting, and having done a few SWAT entries where shooting inside occupied dwellings was going to be the order of the day when things went bad, I am not going to second guess the officer in his decision to fire while in a public street setting. Also, please note that thinking that you are always going to hit with every round you fire in any real gunfight is as wishful thinking as believing you are going to land every punch in a boxing match. People move and try to hurt you. Paper targets do not.

3. Waiting for backup is also a judgment call. If the officer believed the man was going to "go off" on a public street and possibly attack someone or hold them hostage, then approaching the suspect and attempting to interpose himself between the man and any potential victims/hostages may have been the right call. I have seen people go from apparently normal to batsh$% crazy and trying to kill someone in a time frame measured by an eye blink. Standard doctrine in most situations involving possible violent contact has been to wait for backup. Sometimes the doctrine is "wait for SWAT." However, the first thing on the agenda for the first responder in almost any tactical situation is "containment." Sitting in your car and talking on a radio while a disturbed man walks away, toward a lot of pedestrian "targets" is not containing the situation. Moving to cut off said man while remaining in communication with your dispatch might be.

Now, with all this said, I think this is a screwed up situation. I have no idea what really went on, and the video does not show enough to draw any reasonable conclusions. I have no idea of the department policies in place and whether the officer violated any of them by his actions. I think the case will hinge on whether the police officer can articulate why a reasonable man would have considered the man he shot to be a legitimate threat. I do not know if he can do this or if the man should have been considered a threat. I do know that if he knew this man had a violent history and was known to be unpredictable and if the man had an open knife in his hand, contact with the man can be seen as warranted, in order to determine if the man was merely whittling on a piece of wood or having a psychotic episode and mumbling about how he was going to shank all the aliens that were beaming thoughts into his head. If the man started to turn while holding an open knife in his hand and after the officer had told him to put the knife down, then use of deadly force might be justified. That is a lot of ifs and it is possible that a lot of the ifs did not apply and the man should have not been shot or possibly not even been approached by the officer. For instance, if the officer knew the man liked to sit in the park and do wood carving and if the officer knew the man had never attacked someone with a knife and if the man had only been arrested for minor fisticuffs when drunk and if the man appeared to be sober, the correct response from the office might have been to roll down the cruiser window and say "Hey, Bud, what are you carving today?" rather than get out of the car, approach the man, and tell him to drop the knife.

This situation is far too complicated for anyone to sit comfortably in their chair and type away on an Internet forum and think they have the gist of it. Judging from previous cases where I have been a witness or participant in the legal dance following the lethal festivities, I would be willing to bet that the media "facts" are off by quite a bit, and that many key points in the situation are not known to us here in Internet Playland.

My opinion on the matter, for what is worth (which is not much in this case), is that I simply do not enough facts and evidence to really form an opinion.

Um... yeah, what he said :-P

KaliGman wrote:Yes, I'm sure that other LEOS do have opinions. I really don't follow a lot of your logic on this one, though.

1. Why was his weapon drawn? Well, if the officer is driving down the street and sees a man who is known to be frequently combative and disorderly, and said man is carrying an open knife on a public street with pedestrians (i.e. potential victims) walking near him, I believe his weapon should have been out when he went to question the man. In fact, this is a standard scenario in much police academy training, including some of the officer survival courses I taught. The "apparently not doing anything but carrying a weapon" guy is frequently a subject in training. Standard doctrine in most LEO courses I have attended, taught, or written is to approach with your weapon out and aimed at the armed person. Action beats reaction, and you are behind the power curve if your weapon is in your holster.
...

I agree with much of your post (I think there is a lot between your's and raven's that they can agree), but am curious about the above.

Are you actually saying this in a general sense, or is it standard procedure to approach armed people in such a manner, who are "apparently not doing anything else"?

If so, what would the criminal activity be?

The reason I ask is that there are a lot of people who walk around armed everyday, and carrying a weapon doesn't necessarily equate to RS absent other factors.

I would certainly hope that they teach beyond that in that it doesn't apply absent RAS/PC.

Hey KaliG, Like I said ... I'm far from an expert and you obviously have much more experience than I do . I can just give my point of view from some of the things I've experience and have had to testify to.

You'er correct ... there is a lot missing and nobody knows what really went on. I can only add what's been ingrained in me as far as being responsible for every shot we take. 4 out of 5 hits ...good shooting, but here where I'm at... we'd be put through the meat grinder for that 5th shot .

You've seen a lot of stuff KaliG and have a TON of experience. Thank You for what you do and sharing your knowledge with us. You'd probably be the one who can dissect this and come up with an explanation . I Apologize if my point of view appears to be misleading :o . Take Very Good Care and Be Safe Always.

God Bless :)


-raven-

ghostrider wrote:What kind of ammo/bullets were you using when you did that.

Your statements may well be based on your experience, but the FBI has done extensive testing on bullets, ammo, and their ballistics. Modern defensive ammo is designed to penetrate while not over penetrating. A lot of people get caught up in worrying about too much penetration, and ignore that if it doesn't penetrate enough, then it won't stop the threat. Less lethal weapons and rounds are just that. "Less lethal". A lot of people don't seem to grasp that force is still force, and it must be justified. When a gun is justified is no time to explore less lethal options. It's either a good shoot, or it isn't. I don't know about a 9mm Gold Dot going through and through a 4 x 4. I'll have to try it next time I'm at the range.

You might want to do a little research on such things if you have those concerns. That will give you some insight on the concerns you express. Most modern defensive handgun ammo is designed to dump most (if not all) of it's energy inside the intended target. Most agencies use such ammo.

Just out of curiosity, if you "don't know much about guns...", then how can you feel comfortable postulating on what you "think" will happen? Is it just that you are so passoniate about the topic that you don't care to research the facts before you make such statements? Is it that the message is more important (ends justifies the means)? Or is it something else. Just curious.

Thanks Raven for you insight as an LEO. I know a thing or two about RAS/PC to a stop, but also realize that the press reports don't always get the information correct. We really don't know what was going through that officer's mind that made him believe the situation warranted deadly force. Tragedy all the way around IMHO.

Thanks for your reply. Your's and Raven's replies both answered any questions I had about penetration of a LEO's firearms. I understand the difference between hollow point vs full metal jacket (which is what I used) rounds but had no idea what LEOs use. When I said "I don't know much about guns" I said that because I didn't want to come across as if I thought I was an expert. I haven't researched any concerns I may have about this issue because my concern was actually observations that came from watching movies. I'll be the first to admit that this is a very poor source fo information to form an opinion. Please be assured my comments weren't intended to accuse an officer of doing his/her job poorly. My statements were definately based on a lack of knowledge or ignorance in the matter. I believe to have a valid opinion on this occurance I would have had to walk in an LEO's shoes. LEOs have such an important job that you hear these statements often. "There is never a cop around when you need one" or "that cop was out of line and is guilty of police brutality. Theirs is a greatly under appreciated occupation in my observation.

Jack

jackknifeh wrote:Thanks for your reply. Your's and Raven's replies both answered any questions I had about penetration of a LEO's firearms. I understand the difference between hollow point vs full metal jacket (which is what I used) rounds but had no idea what LEOs use. When I said "I don't know much about guns" I said that because I didn't want to come across as if I thought I was an expert. I haven't researched any concerns I may have about this issue because my concern was actually observations that came from watching movies. I'll be the first to admit that this is a very poor source fo information to form an opinion. Please be assured my comments weren't intended to accuse an officer of doing his/her job poorly. My statements were definately based on a lack of knowledge or ignorance in the matter. I believe to have a valid opinion on this occurance I would have had to walk in an LEO's shoes. LEOs have such an important job that you hear these statements often. "There is never a cop around when you need one" or "that cop was out of line and is guilty of police brutality. Theirs is a greatly under appreciated occupation in my observation.

Jack

Thanks for clearing things up for me. :)

ghostrider wrote:I agree with much of your post (I think there is a lot between your's and raven's that they can agree), but am curious about the above.

Are you actually saying this in a general sense, or is it standard procedure to approach armed people in such a manner, who are "apparently not doing anything else"?

If so, what would the criminal activity be?

The reason I ask is that there are a lot of people who walk around armed everyday, and carrying a weapon doesn't necessarily equate to RS absent other factors.

I would certainly hope that they teach beyond that in that it doesn't apply absent RAS/PC.

Ghostrider,

Everything is situational. I will say that, carrying a knife or firearm in your hand and walking down a public street is different than carrying a firearm or knife in a holster or sheath in an area where open carry is legal. If the weapon is in your hand, standard LEO doctrine is usually to have one of their weapons (usually a handgun) in their hand when confronting you, and also asking you to put your weapon down. Weapons that are holstered, sheathed. or in your pocket are a different matter and things vary depending on other variables.

Hope this answers your question. I have to run as Ms. KaliGman is giving me the eye as I am supposed to be off today and taking her out to dinner... :D

KaliGman wrote:...I have to run as Ms. KaliGman is giving me the eye as I am supposed to be off today and taking her out to dinner... :D

Getting the "Eye" from the wife ...yep, you're DOOMED :p . I highly suggest paying as much attention to her as possible and avoid any evasive action ... it's no use :eek: . She knows where you sleep brother :D :D :D

I'm the Master of Getting Myself In Trouble With My Fiancee' *looks over shoulder and also gets the "EYE" * :o .

Thanks for your explanation and Knowledge . Take Good Care, Be Safe Always, and Enjoy the Quality Time With The Wife.

God Bless :)


-raven-