Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

3 officers killed, 4 others hurt when man opens fire on police serving warrant in Kentucky


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The State is asking these people to put their life on the line, to go into dangerous situations where they might be forced to take out their gun and shoot someone

My friends in law enforcement are primarily park rangers and game wardens.

Park rangers:  I once asked one if he ever shot at anybody.  He said yes.  I asked what happened then.  He said the guy ran faster.  Park rangers' biggest law enforcement issue is usually arresting nude bicyclists.  So I guess that doesn't really count.

Game wardens often work alone, hundreds of miles from backup, arresting people who are usually armed.  Now, maybe you can understand why I have little respect for people who approach law enforcement as a mob and don't know how to handle their service revolvers.

Agreed that in this case, the fugitive had previously shot at the police, thus inviting the mistake that killed him.  That's terminal stupidity.  I'd reluctantly have to agree that the first shot may have been unintentional.  Maybe even he first dozen.  But after that, it was the deliberate killing of a victim no longer able to defend himself.

I can see how the first mistake got made and the victim was shot initially.  But another 59 shots over six seconds?  That's just being trigger happy - cowardice in action.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Agreed that in this case, the fugitive had previously shot at the police, thus inviting the mistake that killed him.  That's terminal stupidity.  I'd reluctantly have to agree that the first shot may have been unintentional.  Maybe even he first dozen.  But after that, it was the deliberate killing of a victim no longer able to defend himself.

I can see how the first mistake got made and the victim was shot initially.  But another 59 shots over six seconds?  That's just being trigger happy - cowardice in action.

Doug

I must, once again, disagree. To quote NPR:

Quote

Law enforcement and experts in police law who have viewed body cam footage of the shooting say that the officers' response reflects standard police training.

"Officers are trained to shoot until the threat they perceive, and or reasonably believe is present, has ended," said Lance LoRusso, a lawyer who specializes in use-of-force cases.

Further reading - Source

They are taught to do this, what you call "cowardice" is them literally doing their jobs in the manner in which they are trained to do it. You could argue that the training is flawed and police procedure needs to change, I have no problem with that. Depending on the proposal I might even support you.

More to the point, if this tragic situation reflects standard police procedure, then the police would have done the same thing regardless of who the victim was. Therefore, it cannot be because of racism (which is, after all, the context in which we are discussing this topic). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

They are taught to do this, what you call "cowardice" is them literally doing their jobs in the manner in which they are trained to do it. You could argue that the training is flawed and police procedure needs to change, I have no problem with that. Depending on the proposal I might even support you.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  They are trained to take life, not save it.

I once sat in on a training session for park rangers given by a regular police trainer.  After an hour-and-a-half of referring to the people he was arresting as "dirt-balls" and "scumbags," he could see he was losing his audience.  They were staring out the window and looking glassy-eyed at the wall.  During break he asked me who these people were.  I told him.  That's when it dawned on him that park rangers don't deal with scumbags.  He wasn't speaking their language.

And that's the problem:  when you're taught that the people you deal with are dirtballs and scumbags you get the idea that it's them vs. us and it's OK to kill them.  That attitude has to be taken out of police work.

When it comes to firearms, the police academy teaches one day of live-fire.  One day out of a six-week course.  The rest of the week is taken up on how to fill out paperwork if you discharge your weapon.  And that's all the firearms training they get.  No wonder they lack confidence:  they're scared of their shadows and that has been trained into them.

In high school my daughter was house-sitting for a friend.  She heard a noise outside (I think it was the cat.) and called 9-1-1.  The friend had a Shadow Man statue against the garage (It looked like a man leaning against the garage.).  When the cop saw that, he shot it.  He noticed that real people fall over when shot and don't make metallic plinks.  Anyway, he had days of paperwork to do on it and the department bought my daughter's friend a new statue.  I think he was adequately chastised.  But why did he shoot the statue n the first place?  He was trained to be afraid and he panicked.

We train them to be cowards:  Uvalde.  They did what they were trained to do:  hide in a safe place.

In Oklahoma we have a police chief who is not CLEET-certified.  That's considered the minimum amount of training, even by police.

Police cadets are required to have an Associate's degree (2 years) in any subject and take the six-week police academy and they call that well trained.  Then they pair them with a senior officer for six months.  These folks are sent into places to make life-and-death decisions.

I am trained to deal with trees.  I have two Bachelor's degrees, a Masters and a Ph.D.  I have two timber cruising certificates and am a Certified Forester.  I also have 50 year's experience (40 when I started doing research on my own.).  The only life-and-death decisions I ever make are which tree to turn into lumber.  Next to me, the newby policeman is untrained and the senior officer would be a beginner.  If foresters get this kind of training, why not a police officer?

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I must, once again, disagree. To quote NPR:

They are taught to do this, what you call "cowardice" is them literally doing their jobs in the manner in which they are trained to do it. You could argue that the training is flawed and police procedure needs to change, I have no problem with that. Depending on the proposal I might even support you.

More to the point, if this tragic situation reflects standard police procedure, then the police would have done the same thing regardless of who the victim was. Therefore, it cannot be because of racism (which is, after all, the context in which we are discussing this topic). 

LOL, no.  As former military, and current law enforcement, we have had multiple discussions about this case at work, and I have yet to encounter a person trying to justify this.  You don't empty magazines without receiving return fire.  We didn't even do that in Iraq during legit firefights.  The proper use of force is to use the amount of force necessary to neutralize the situation.  If you aren't encountering force after ONE shot, the use of force should be over.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

That's exactly what I'm saying.  They are trained to take life, not save it.

Fair enough, that's an opinion I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand it. 

However, by this very fact, you can't also blame racism. They are either following their training (not racist) or they are not! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Fair enough, that's an opinion I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand it. 

However, by this very fact, you can't also blame racism. They are either following their training (not racist) or they are not! 

 

Hi PA

I agree that they are trained and if applied as intended is effective. Some cops spend too much time in one district and at times it gets personal that is why our national police the RCMP rotate their personal to different locations in the country and expose them to several different cultural situations. When I was young we had beat cops that walked the neighborhood and knew everyone and engaged them in a very different manner. Then they because the squad car cruisers/ticket writers, one thing I learned was you have a right to be silent and one should use it. You do not have to explain anything to anyone or argue about it cops are not judges save your defense for a judge and let them process you.

Guys that think they are all that and a bag of chips don't last especially when they lose, I have had cops pull guns on me because of other people and their crap and would never put that on anyone, if I did something fine I will deal with it otherwise I know nothing and don't care to. I have also had cops that knew me place bets on my integrity because one cop phoned me and said he had a charge to serve and said I would come down to see him and I showed up in 15 min. There were others that knew what kind of bad boy I was and and didn't mind me being me.:whistle::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Fair enough, that's an opinion I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand it. 

However, by this very fact, you can't also blame racism. They are either following their training (not racist) or they are not! 

Remember that poor training I mentioned?  You can't train racism out of somebody in six weeks.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

LOL, no.  As former military, and current law enforcement, we have had multiple discussions about this case at work, and I have yet to encounter a person trying to justify this.  You don't empty magazines without receiving return fire.  We didn't even do that in Iraq during legit firefights.  The proper use of force is to use the amount of force necessary to neutralize the situation.  If you aren't encountering force after ONE shot, the use of force should be over.  

That's not how officers are trained, and it's a terrible way to train officers if you want my opinion. If they were trained to shoot one round and then wait to see if the threat is neutralised, if there is a danger to their lives, a dozen rounds could be fired at the officer before their brain recognises that there is still a threat. Hence the officers are trained to shoot, repeatedly, at the largest target (body/chest) until there is no longer a threat. 

The guy could have pulled over at any point, he chose to speed away instead. He could have left his gun in his car but instead chose to fire it at the police. Then when he's running away in the dark, the officers must assume he is armed and dangerous. Whether he is armed and dangerous, every officer MUST assume that he is. 

The following is a video from a former police officer and outlines how this situation would have been approached from the point of view of a police officer. The first 7 1/2 minutes of the video are set up and context, you may find it boring, but from about the 7:30 mark things get interesting. Officers in a pursuing vehicle are on record saying "shots fired from the vehicle", other security footage of the chase shows a muzzle flash from the driver's side, and spent shell casings were found in the vehicle along with the gun. Every officer involved in the pursuit was immediately notified that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 

At the 14 minute mark, Tatum makes the same observation I did - they all fired their guns at the same time, which was when Walker had turned around towards the officers. After yelling to get on the ground, stop running, stop stop stop stop stop and he refuses to stop, then suddenly he does stop and turns around, while appearing in the video to reach into his pocket to grab something.... I don't have anything to say except the police acted 100% appropriately! 

There's some interesting information around the 19 minute mark too. Shortly before the 21 minute mark, the officer being interviewed starts talking about police training. I know it's tempting to ignore videos, especially when they are 25 minutes long, so I've suggested a few timecodes to skip to. I would recommend watching the whole thing if you can, see how actual police officers approach a situation like this. 

As I mentioned to Doug above, you can question the training itself and suggest new policies and procedures, and depending on the type of suggestion you offer I might even think it's a great idea. But based on proper procedures, I have no problem with the actions of the police, it appears they acted to the letter of their training, that's precisely what you want from a police force.

If the guy was white and had 60 bullets in him I'd be saying the same thing! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Remember that poor training I mentioned?  You can't train racism out of somebody in six weeks.

Doug

Hi Doug

The majority of people are trained to drive a motor vehicle, some use it as a means of driving here to there, to others it's their babe wagon and to the irate women/men it is a means of running over you woman/man. You can train the sh!t of of people and some people need more that training which is why I think psych evaluation tests are in order for both gun owners and cops.

Edited by jmccr8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Remember that poor training I mentioned?  You can't train racism out of somebody in six weeks.

Doug

Well that's a never-ending goalpost to shift! When an officer shoots a white criminal, it's just their training. When an officer shoots a black criminal, it's racist! 

Yeah, nah, I don't buy that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's not how officers are trained, and it's a terrible way to train officers if you want my opinion. If they were trained to shoot one round and then wait to see if the threat is neutralised,

Hi PA

Where I grew up they were taught the 3 taps system, it was not about the other guy surviving, how it is used is important and each case has it's qualities so there can be no blanket answers. If unjustified use is used it should be prosecuted like any other killing

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

...I once asked one if he ever shot at anybody.  He said yes.  I asked what happened then.  He said the guy ran faster.  Park rangers' biggest law enforcement issue is usually arresting nude bicyclists...

Reading between the lines of what he said, he actually was shooting at nude bicyclists, being that their bull's eyes become visible, once they bend over forward, in order to become smaller targets

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Autistocrates said:

Reading between the lines of what he said, he actually was shooting at nude bicyclists, being that their bull's eyes become visible, once they bend over forward, in order to become smaller targets

Hi Aut

Reading between the lines is a subjective experience not shared by all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's not how officers are trained, and it's a terrible way to train officers if you want my opinion. If they were trained to shoot one round and then wait to see if the threat is neutralised, if there is a danger to their lives, a dozen rounds could be fired at the officer before their brain recognises that there is still a threat. Hence the officers are trained to shoot, repeatedly, at the largest target (body/chest) until there is no longer a threat. 

The guy could have pulled over at any point, he chose to speed away instead. He could have left his gun in his car but instead chose to fire it at the police. Then when he's running away in the dark, the officers must assume he is armed and dangerous. Whether he is armed and dangerous, every officer MUST assume that he is. 

The following is a video from a former police officer and outlines how this situation would have been approached from the point of view of a police officer. The first 7 1/2 minutes of the video are set up and context, you may find it boring, but from about the 7:30 mark things get interesting. Officers in a pursuing vehicle are on record saying "shots fired from the vehicle", other security footage of the chase shows a muzzle flash from the driver's side, and spent shell casings were found in the vehicle along with the gun. Every officer involved in the pursuit was immediately notified that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 

At the 14 minute mark, Tatum makes the same observation I did - they all fired their guns at the same time, which was when Walker had turned around towards the officers. After yelling to get on the ground, stop running, stop stop stop stop stop and he refuses to stop, then suddenly he does stop and turns around, while appearing in the video to reach into his pocket to grab something.... I don't have anything to say except the police acted 100% appropriately! 

There's some interesting information around the 19 minute mark too. Shortly before the 21 minute mark, the officer being interviewed starts talking about police training. I know it's tempting to ignore videos, especially when they are 25 minutes long, so I've suggested a few timecodes to skip to. I would recommend watching the whole thing if you can, see how actual police officers approach a situation like this. 

As I mentioned to Doug above, you can question the training itself and suggest new policies and procedures, and depending on the type of suggestion you offer I might even think it's a great idea. But based on proper procedures, I have no problem with the actions of the police, it appears they acted to the letter of their training, that's precisely what you want from a police force.

If the guy was white and had 60 bullets in him I'd be saying the same thing! 

You're telling a LEO about LEO training?

And, you're making assertions about an investigation that hasn't been completed?

That's some authority on things you're holding yourself out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Well that's a never-ending goalpost to shift! When an officer shoots a white criminal, it's just their training. When an officer shoots a black criminal, it's racist! 

Yeah, nah, I don't buy that! 

It's biased either way.

Training is nearly non-existent.  Remember the Chief of Police in Panama, Oklahoma who wasn't even CLEET qualified?  He had no training at all.  How did he get the job?  "We need a chief of police and there's John over there who's out of work.  He's a good ol' boy.  Sure he has a drinking problem and beats his wife,  But that's just because she works and he doesn't.  That'll change once we hire him."  The good ol' boy network.

So you can't blame murdering a white (or a black) on training.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising that this awful tragedy thread morphed into police shooting blacks on purpose because of "racism".  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's not how officers are trained, and it's a terrible way to train officers if you want my opinion. If they were trained to shoot one round and then wait to see if the threat is neutralised, if there is a danger to their lives, a dozen rounds could be fired at the officer before their brain recognises that there is still a threat. Hence the officers are trained to shoot, repeatedly, at the largest target (body/chest) until there is no longer a threat. 

The guy could have pulled over at any point, he chose to speed away instead. He could have left his gun in his car but instead chose to fire it at the police. Then when he's running away in the dark, the officers must assume he is armed and dangerous. Whether he is armed and dangerous, every officer MUST assume that he is. 

The following is a video from a former police officer and outlines how this situation would have been approached from the point of view of a police officer. The first 7 1/2 minutes of the video are set up and context, you may find it boring, but from about the 7:30 mark things get interesting. Officers in a pursuing vehicle are on record saying "shots fired from the vehicle", other security footage of the chase shows a muzzle flash from the driver's side, and spent shell casings were found in the vehicle along with the gun. Every officer involved in the pursuit was immediately notified that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 

At the 14 minute mark, Tatum makes the same observation I did - they all fired their guns at the same time, which was when Walker had turned around towards the officers. After yelling to get on the ground, stop running, stop stop stop stop stop and he refuses to stop, then suddenly he does stop and turns around, while appearing in the video to reach into his pocket to grab something.... I don't have anything to say except the police acted 100% appropriately! 

There's some interesting information around the 19 minute mark too. Shortly before the 21 minute mark, the officer being interviewed starts talking about police training. I know it's tempting to ignore videos, especially when they are 25 minutes long, so I've suggested a few timecodes to skip to. I would recommend watching the whole thing if you can, see how actual police officers approach a situation like this. 

As I mentioned to Doug above, you can question the training itself and suggest new policies and procedures, and depending on the type of suggestion you offer I might even think it's a great idea. But based on proper procedures, I have no problem with the actions of the police, it appears they acted to the letter of their training, that's precisely what you want from a police force.

If the guy was white and had 60 bullets in him I'd be saying the same thing! 

You are 100% wrong.  Don't confuse with shooting to kill (aiming center mass, specifically the chest area) and expending all ammo, reloading, and doing it again.  It doesn't work that way.  You are trained to assess the situation 100% of the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A nation that Lives by the sword, shall die by the sword … so it will be for the United States. Death by self-inflicted fire.

The Book of Truth

 

 

Edited by Raptor Witness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You're telling a LEO about LEO training?

And, you're making assertions about an investigation that hasn't been completed?

That's some authority on things you're holding yourself out to be.

I'm quoting LEO's and lawyers, so I feel my argument is justified. Quote: "Officers are trained to shoot until the threat they perceive, and or reasonably believe is present, has ended," said Lance LoRusso, a lawyer who specializes in use-of-force cases". I may not be LEO, but my opinions are based on the legal opinions of legal experts. 

And yes, I am making assertions about the investigation before it's been completed - it's called having an opinion. If the investigation turns up that the officers acted inappropriately I will be the first to change my tune and condemn them. But until then, I believe the officers acted appropriately within the law. 

It's not too different to what you guys are doing - offering opinions on the guilt/innocence of the officers before the investigation is complete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

So you can't blame murdering a white (or a black) on training.

Doug

And I cannot agree that this was "murder". Their actions were consistent with their training, and all officers shot at the same time, suggesting that all officers perceived the same threat, which means this was not just one officer getting spooked and then a dozen following with guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

You are 100% wrong.  Don't confuse with shooting to kill (aiming center mass, specifically the chest area) and expending all ammo, reloading, and doing it again.  It doesn't work that way.  You are trained to assess the situation 100% of the time.  

Take it up with Lance LoRusso, Attorney At Law and Officer Brandon Tatum, I'm comfortable with my position on the matter unless you can demonstrate why Tatum and LoRusso are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And I cannot agree that this was "murder". Their actions were consistent with their training, and all officers shot at the same time, suggesting that all officers perceived the same threat, which means this was not just one officer getting spooked and then a dozen following with guns. 

I cannot agree that his was self-defense:  the victim was unarmed.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1066 said:

I cannot agree that his was self-defense:  the victim was unarmed.

Doug

The police couldn't make that assertion because he literally shot his gun at them from the car, the police must make the assumption that he still has the gun on him now that he's running from his vehicle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

The police couldn't make that assertion because he literally shot his gun at them from the car, the police must make the assumption that he still has the gun on him now that he's running from his vehicle. 

I can see how they would make a mistake here, but it is illegal to kill an unarmed person who is fleeing and not a threat to anyone else.

Maybe we should give a pass to the first two or three shots.  But six seconds?  If you can't ascertain the situation in two seconds, you have no business being a cop.  And training doesn't give yu a free pass.

Like it or not, the police broke the law.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1066 said:

Like it or not, the police broke the law.

Doug

I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Doug. If the investigation turns up that they acted inappropriately, I will change my tune, but until then we are at an impasse :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.