quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
example of how you never know if someone is armed or not by looking at them. Seemingly normal 50+ year old male, looks unarmed, walks into a store and just starts stabbing a customer sitting in a chair.

See how quickly this can turn.....

https://x.com/Mrgunsngear/status/2046953483643797984

That was ... strange.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Wasn't Michael Brown 6'4" 300 lbs. and trying to take the officers weapon? In that case, I would have done the same thing.

Yes, exactly. And he had already been in an altercation with officer Darren Wilson earlier, and had tried to take his gun.

He was big, he was violent and he was a criminal, but.... he was unarmed when he charged at Officer Wilson.

In that moment, Wilson had to choose between losing his life, or ruining his life. Some choice.



.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

That was ... strange.

0% chance that dude wouldnt meet his demise by way of a chair or my foot. It's wild that everyone was ok with him just sitting down after that bullshit.

To answer the OP’s question, yes and no. Other posters answered this, and I will try.

With any question or statement, each individual’s mind’s eye sees something different. Also, there are an untold number of scenarios which can be thought of from those questions and statements.

Firstly, NO ONE CAN USE ANY FORCE AGAINST ANYONE UNLESS IT IS JUSTIFIED. From spanking your child to shooting multiple people attacking you, you need to be justified using that force which has to be reasonable.

This topic can fill days in seminars, so fully answering it, while relatively easy, can get rather deep. Time of day, weathcr conditions, the LEO’s health, disparities in size, weapon used, LEO’s training, LEO’s experience, multiple subjects, etc etc etc are just some of the endless variables involved.

A 4 year old kid with a knife held high running at an officer - most likely unreasonable for an officer to be justified in using deadly force.

A 23 year old doing the same thing - it is most likely reasonable to justify deadly force. But what if that 23 year old is partially paralyzed and his running at the cop at a third of the speed of a healthy 23 year old? It could be justified, but maybe not.

Here in Texas, there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT before using deadly force. That translates to standing your ground - not having to hide, run, or disengage. It is up the individual facing the force to make that decision, including LEOs.

I’ve seen many videos over the years I believed the LEOs weren’t justified in their use of force. Some of them were ultimately charged in their incident.

All that said, there are FAR more incidents of officers failing to use deadly force or adequate force against an individual or multiples charging them when they were more than justified to do so. Even for LEOs hurting or killing someone isn’t normal, and they will get injured or killed before using force against someone. Really sad to see those videos.

Lastly, LEOs are a government entity, and they are charged with a mission in our society. That societal mission is to not lose while fulfilling their duty.

Force is ugly being used by anyone, and negative optics of LEOs using force to complete their duty has been weaponized against them, mostly by the left who is widely known to be anti-LEO.

So can a LEO shoot someone charging them? Too many variables, so each incident is a yes or no based on its own merits.

SanDiego is paying 30 million to a family where the officer shot the running victim in the back.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
SanDiego is paying 30 million to a family where the officer shot the running victim in the back.

I don’t know that case, but it is sometimes justified in shooting someone in the back, at least here in Texas.

A common scenario is a subject with a pistol who has just committed a violent felony and is being chased by the cops. The subject is running towards an elementary school where children are out and about the school grounds just seconds away from the subject.

All this time, the cops are identifying themselves and ordering the subject to stop and drop the pistol. The subject continues towards the school, and one of the officers, believing the subject will threaten or cause harm to the children, aims, fires, and drops the subject by shooting him in the back. Most likely…in Texas, no billed by the grand jury as justified use if deadly force. Even so, the family can still sue.

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
SanDiego is paying 30 million to a family where the officer shot the running victim in the back.

I don’t know that case, but it is sometimes justified in shooting someone in the back, at least here in Texas.

A common scenario is a subject with a pistol who has just committed a violent felony and is being chased by the cops. The subject is running towards an elementary school where children are out and about the school grounds just seconds away from the subject.

All this time, the cops are identifying themselves and ordering the subject to stop and drop the pistol. The subject continues towards the school, and one of the officers, believing the subject will threaten or cause harm to the children, aims, fires, and drops the subject by shooting him in the back. Most likely…in Texas, no billed by the grand jury as justified use if deadly force. Even so, the family can still sue.

100% there are plenty of instances where shooting a perp in the back is justified.

Except the man was innocent.
A victim running from the crimnals.

Hmmmmmm, a dude just ran at Secret Service agents last night. Good thing they waited to see if he was delivering Girl Scout cookies.

Happened to me:
A dude having a mental health crisis leapt off his porch and ran toward me down a long driveway with a Smith 29 in his hand. It was held out one handed from his body but not pointed at me. When he closed to OOB range, I introduced him to an 870 and ordered him to stop and toss the gun. He froze in place and I could watch him as he thought about his options. Had he moved the muzzle of the gun in my direction, I would have shot instantly. But he dropped the gun and ran off, and we chased him down and got him hospitalized. Shooting him as he closed the distance to me would have been considered a good shoot. My bosses at the time said so but were glad I held off. The devil is in the details. In this incident, there was a threat but time and distance to address it. And you dont always have that luxury. The long-standing SCOTUS ruling on shooting fleeing suspects is outlined in a 1985 case called TN Vs. Garner. IMHO, a good judicial decision.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Hmmmmmm, a dude just ran at Secret Service agents last night. Good thing they waited to see if he was delivering Girl Scout cookies.

Not even in the same universe as the original discussion as he was visually armed AND firing.

That guy would have been no less a threat had no weapon been visible and had he not been shooting. Maybe more of a threat even. As a clear threat, he made it past 10 people at a security checkpoint at least 6 of which were armed before anyone was able to draw. How far could he have made it if he were not visibly armed? How does running past 10 people at a security checkpoint while not visibly armed make him any less of a threat? He's just doing his best O.J. Simpson impersonation, right?

Even with a visible weapon, having been tased, several times, the officer has to resort to shooting the man, and even that doesn't work quickly.

JMO the taser should have been dropped and the Glock out at the first sight of the knife and having to resort to what if's could get you killed.

Point being to illustrate just how quickly someone can get to you, and the time it takes to figure out, are they armed or not is quite short.

No not everyone doing this deserves to be shot, but charging at someone who is armed will get you a high probability of being shot.

https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/2048404379821326779

Next thing someone's gonna say is:
"It's not like the movies, and one shot doesn't automatically stop an individual"

Because heaven forbid that some people (maybe even on this Forum) may have first hand knowledge of a constantly evolving scenario with an individual that's hell bent on harm and; high, drunk, crazy, armed, unarmed, sweaty, larger, skilled, unskilled, in a room, outside, in a hallway, patio, on snow, ice, sand, or / and any combination of any of the above.

With a partner, without a partner, a partner seconds away, minutes away,

or any of the, I don't know, MILLIONS of variables that are included in the totality of the constantly evolving situation.

But, but, but... I watch "Cops" every Friday night!

Took a couple of schools at HK training division before they flogged it off to Black Water. When I went through the academy the saying was you bring the gun to the gunfight. Two studies were quoted, one by KCPD MO and the second by FBI. Both studies agreed to within a few data points that if a bad guy is going for your gun, He is not there to collect a souvenir. The conclusion of both studies is if the bad guy is able to gain control of your gun, you will get shot with it. Knowing the trifecta of justification is Will, means and intent, a bad guy running at you has checked at least two of those blocks. A 5-foot 100-Pound girl as opposed to a 6' 4' 300-pound male gives pause to the means. Does not automatically say you should shoot them but it still an option on the use of force matrix.

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Hmmmmmm, a dude just ran at Secret Service agents last night. Good thing they waited to see if he was delivering Girl Scout cookies.

Not even in the same universe as the original discussion as he was visually armed AND firing.

Yeah, but Michael Brown was in the same exact universe.

^^^^^^^And really so was this guy. Look at the video and tells a pretty good tale for those not invested in an agenda.

Imagine if/when they get explosives figured out.

https://www.kktv.com/2025/05/3...-suspect-identified/

Thoughts ?

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
Thoughts ?

I'm glad the useless drag on society is dead and the only thing better is if he had never been born.

One of the videos I watched going thru the WPD academy back in the late '70's was based on real life scenarios. In one an officer is sent into an apartment building on a disturbance call. The video is from the officer's perspective.

As the officer proceeds up the stairs you can hear a lot of grunting, banging, and things being tossed about and broken. At the top of the stairs the officer enters the apartment door where all the noise is coming from.

He enters the apartment and sees a very large male (think WWF size male) in the bathroom. He is obviously unarmed; he bends down and rips the toilet out of the floor. He then starts towards the officer, which is where the video is stopped and the question is put; would you be justified in shooting this individual.

If you think that I or any other officer would say anything but yes, you shoot this guy and pray to God that you have enough ammo to put him down before he reaches you, you have no idea how the real-world works.