From 2025, Peruvian National Police's SWAT team: SUAT (Subunidad de Acciones Tácticas) shooting it out with gang members.

Surprisingly, no civilians were injured....I'm pretty sure it was through pure luck and not training.


https://x.com/monsterhunter45/.../2106059550004822484

Wow. Definitely NOT training.

I’ll assume that the gangster(s) passed the room temperature challenge with flying colors.

I wouldn’t want to be in that white van!

Now I have a refreshed X account.

One SWAT guy almost got shot crossing in front of another.

Thanks for that.

It raises a question I’ve often thought about: How much risk to uninvolved parties is acceptable in a police action like that? Did the shootees pose so much danger to the public that endangering a few bystanders to prevent their escape was justified?

Assuming it took place in the US, an LEO could get fired or even sued for not shooting in such a situation and allowing the BG(s) to escape, but as far as I know he couldn’t go to jail for allowing that. On the other hand, any number of police officers have gone to jail as a result of a wrong person’s dying (and sometimes even if it’s the right person who died, but for supposedly the wrong reason).

I don't know how it's possible no innocent people were shot.

Is it just bad camera angles that make it appear they are point shooting, do they have lasers, or are they just point shooting?

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I wouldn’t want to be in that white van!

It's no longer a white van. More like a brown van.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Thanks for that.

It raises a question I’ve often thought about: How much risk to uninvolved parties is acceptable in a police action like that? Did the shootees pose so much danger to the public that endangering a few bystanders to prevent their escape was justified?

Assuming it took place in the US, an LEO could get fired or even sued for not shooting in such a situation and allowing the BG(s) to escape, but as far as I know he couldn’t go to jail for allowing that. On the other hand, any number of police officers have gone to jail as a result of a wrong person’s dying (and sometimes even if it’s the right person who died, but for supposedly the wrong reason).

I can explain the Texas standard on this.


To be charged criminally for an injury to a third party, the injury must be reckless. The definition of recklessness is that there is an unreasonable and unnecessary risk of the prohibited result that the actor knew about and consciously disregarded.


Also keep in mind that there’s an “and” between the unreasonable and unnecessary, so to be criminally charged the risk of the injury to a third-party must be both unreasonable and unnecessary. As an example, if you were at an active shooter, where you shot the shooter and a ricochet hit a third-party, there could be a very good argument made that the risk of hitting somebody who was shooting into a crowd anyway was necessary, and therefore cannot be reckless. The unreasonable comes in that basically if the magic bullet ricochet is off of four things and hit somebody, you shouldn’t have been reasonably expected to understand that.

The civil standards are the usual three which are negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct. Since the lowest one which is negligence, which everyone goes for, when you look the definition of negligence it is: failing to give proper care, attention, or effort to a responsibility, person, or task, usually resulting in harm or loss. That’s fully up to the finder of fact to determine.


Obviously, that’s a lower standard than the criminal one. Also, there are a couple of other things are helpful for the police, such as the ability to claim qualified immunity for a reasonable action. Generally, the reasonableness is going to be defined by the harm you were trying to avoid.

Also, in Texas, there is a defense in the Civil process and remedies code that allows you to use justification for a use of force or deadly force under the penal code as a defense for liability in a Civil case. As such, it allows one to to claim the justification for the use of force (not reckless) makes it ok from a Civil point of view, but there’s not a lot of case law on that one as it is relatively new.

Federal civil liability under a 1983 case still exists, but that is not well applied to accidental injury.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
One SWAT guy almost got shot crossing in front of another.

Look at it from a positive angle, the bodycam SUAT guy has excellent situational awareness and trigger control under extreme stress.

The body cam shows that he stopped shooting and lowered the muzzle off target while his partner passed in front of him.

Yes, good discipline.