quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

What's of concern, the suspect was arrested for this incident, TWO weeks later. How is there a OIS and the principal subject of the stop, not arrested..what was the entire point of the incident?

It's stupid, but I could absolutely see this happening here. Our county jail refuses to absorb any liability whatsoever, and will absolutely err on the side of releasing a public safety risk rather than book them if there's any chance that they might have a medical incident in the jail. We have to take them to the hospital for medical clearance for pretty much anything, and even once they're cleared sometimes they won't accept them. I can definitely envision them refusing to book somebody with fresh bullet holes in them, released from the hospital or not.

The general public would be appalled at the degree of stupidity present in the system if they saw how it actually works.

Preach it!!!

Our medical clearance aren’t that bad but, with one or two of our favorite pansy CO’s it is. They won’t take a murderer w/ a hangnail. They call an on call doctor who doesn’t even see the person. Collects an easy $200 (what I was told from a CO)per call from their nice bed in the middle of the night to just take them to the hospital. Ok. I have two hospitals/trauma centers close by. Furthest in is 6 miles from the jail. Problem. Both out of state. Can’t go. Must be in state. Closest one… 42 miles each way. Now you tied up one to two officers for several hours. Not to mention the risk to everyone on that transport… you know the poor prisoner who may die so we can’t take them….. Most of the time the Dr./PA/EMT/Paramedic on duty at the hospital just shake their heads and laugh. Because why? 99% of the time it is bullshit.

In my state it is law that if the jail refuses them they pay the medical fees for the clearance. If injuries occurred because of the arrest then my department pays the medical clearance charges. We make damn sure to tell the staff the bill goes to the Sheriff since it is his jail. Unless of course it is obvious we banged the guy/girl up.

Sometimes if it just a bullshit refusal F the jail and don’t even bother going to the hospital. Cite and release and leave the person outside the jail. They can deal with them. Pisses some of them off when they want us to take them back after they refused to jail. I have told them I am like pizza delivery … I deliver.. I don’t take returns…

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

Well, the goal of using lethal force isn't to kill them.

When I get to the point where my perceived risk of an assailant inflicting death or grievous bodily harm on me is such I am using lethal force, my objective is to kill my assailant because doing so is my only option.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It's to stop the threat.

That isn't lethal force, it is proportional force in response to the perceived risk of an assailant inflicting grievous bodily harm on me.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

Yeah, I have a bunch of infuriating stories...actually typed a couple out for that post before thinking better of it and deleting them...not worth getting in trouble for airing work stuff on a public forum.

I know all of us who do this for a living totally get it. But I don't think the majority of the public who have never had to deal with that part of the justice system have any idea how idiotically dysfunctional it actually is.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

Well, the goal of using lethal force isn't to kill them.

When I get to the point where my perceived risk of an assailant inflicting death or grievous bodily harm on me is such I am using lethal force, my objective is to kill my assailant because doing so is my only option.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It's to stop the threat.

That isn't lethal force, it is proportional force in response to the perceived risk of an assailant inflicting grievous bodily harm on me.

Ok, let's explore that further.

Crazy lady attacks you with a knife. You shoot her in defense. She drops the knife, falls to the ground, and surrenders. She's no longer a threat, but you didn't kill her.

Do you then fire again to kill her, because killing her was apparently your objective?

Or do you stop firing, because she's no longer a threat of imminent serious injury or death, and therefore there's no longer a justification for you to be using deadly force?

So again: Is your goal in shooting her strictly to kill her, or to end the threat she's presenting to you (which might entail killing her but doesn't always)?

quote:

Originally posted by John Steed:

quote:

Originally posted by powermad:
Got popped and dropped.
Looks like it worked to me.

Death doesn't have to be the final outcome for it to work.

Agreed!

Some must have a different definition of "worked".

There’s “worked” and there’s “She ain’t never gonna do that again”.
This is in the “worked” category

The woman’s name is to kill ya, how approprié.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Crazy lady attacks you with a knife. You shoot her in defense. She drops the knife, falls to the ground, and surrenders. She's no longer a threat, but you didn't kill her.

Do you then fire again to kill her, because killing her was apparently your objective?

Or do you stop firing, because she's no longer a threat of imminent serious injury or death, and therefore there's no longer a justification for you to be using deadly force?

After the shot, which is use of lethal force in Virginia, if the assailant drops their weapon and falls disabled to the ground, the defender no longer can legitimately claim that fear of death or grievous bodily harm at the assailant's hands. Thus, the defender must reduce the level of force being used in self-defense to that which is proportional to the threat.

However, at the moment for firing, that is lethal force being used. It is just the defender's substandard marksmanship that kept it from being lethal.

Was the 21 foot rule in play here?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
For a non-determined attacker, simply the shock/pain of being struck by gunfire can be enough to make them give up, even if the wound isn't severe enough to physically incapacitate or kill them.

Discussions of “stopping power” have become much less common in recent decades (virtually none that I have seen, in fact), evidently because all the gurus have decided that the 9mm Luger cartridge is all that’s necessary for a personal defense handgun (against people, anyway). And although it’s not my primary choice, I agree: In the vast majority of defensive situations involving nonmilitary engagements it will accomplish the goal of stopping an attack.

In fact, one advantage of Internet videos of actual incidents is that it’s obvious that even when hits aren’t scored against robbers or other attackers like home invaders, merely shooting at them will cause them to go into the, “Feets, don’t fail me now!” mode. And if any sort of a hit is scored, in most incidents the target goes down immediately. We never know where the shots were “placed” ( ), but how likely is it that every time someone falls down and stops being a nuisance that his central nervous system was disabled? Yeah, not very often.

Nowadays hardly anyone worries much about such questions, but at one time members of one segment of the crowd that was concerned about terminal ballistics effectiveness (“stopping power”) were highly exercised over the matter. They spent a lot of time and ink (back then, remember) discussing whether a stop was somehow “valid” if the wounding effects weren’t sufficient to have made it physically impossible for the attacker to continue his threatening actions. And because it was necessary to have a term for a situation in which that wasn’t what happened, but the attacker was nevertheless discouraged from continuing his threatening actions, one was invented: Psychological stop.

As can be imagined, the term psychological stop was intended to be somewhat derogatory and not something that any right-thinking defensive gun user should rely on, and that’s actually true. Law enforcement officers are (or should be) taught to shoot until the threat is neutralized. That’s why I have drills that involve knocking down reactive targets: it helps drive home the understanding that not all shots are necessarily going to end things, and we need to be prepared to avoid getting into the habit of, “Fire two rounds and holster.”

But if a single shot or maybe two results in the BG’s deciding that he made a bad decision that day and doesn’t want to be shot—or even shot at—any more, what should we do? Yes. Stop shooting because it doesn’t matter why we ended the attack, whether it was because the shot destroyed someone’s central nervous system, because getting shot hurt and he didn’t want to be hurt any more, because his sensitive hearing was insulted by the loud noises associated with the incident, or because his guardian angel suddenly woke up from her nap and said, “Hey, Abner, stop that!”* If it’s over, it’s over. Unfortunately for some people, though, that doesn’t always happen. There is at least one video of a store owner shooting robbers who are lying motionless on the floor after being shot (or shot at) earlier. As I recall, things didn’t go too well for the store owner as a consequence, and it’s something the rest of us should keep in mind.

* I’ve always wondered what entities like guardian angels were doing before things got to the point of their charges’ being shot at; having their nails done, walking Cerberus the dog, or just chilling out sucking down ambrosia and nectar with the rest of the supernatural gang—? Anyway.

I don't use FaceBook so I found this on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noWlBbeU8vU

It shows some of what lead up to the shooting. When the maniac is on the ground, she asks "Why didn't you taze me?" in spite of the fact she had been tazed numerous times with no effect.

Apparently, the repo man was coming to get her car.

Almost seemed like she was having such a bad day that she wanted the cops to end it for her. Hopefully things improve for her. The camera with her bursting out the car door with the knife was actually frightening.

quote:

Originally posted by John Steed:
When the maniac is on the ground, she asks "Why didn't you taze me?" in spite of the fact she had been tazed numerous times with no effect.

No, that was the idiots in the screened in porch asking about the taser.

“Florida Woman…”

Also that lady looked like she maybe had more than the 18 inches generally accepted for bullet penetration.

Thank goodness for bodycams. The bottom right is our "Florida woman".

With the increase in BMI in America's population, discussions concerning penetration may be more relevant. Interesting that the pelvic shot put her down. No surprise.

^^^^
I’ve wondered about BMI as well. It certainly adds a new dimension, perhaps, to the 9mm vs 40S&W debate.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
^^^^
I’ve wondered about BMI as well. It certainly adds a new dimension, perhaps, to the 9mm vs 40S&W debate.

Carrying a double rifle with hard solids as one would use on cape buffs seems a bit much.

Seriously tho, Physics sucks. Faster and heavier bullets result in a lot more felt recoil slowing down accurate follow up shots. So pick your poison.

4 buck.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The woman’s name is to kill ya, how approprié.

Maybe. Or her illiterate parent(s) was trying for Tequila”

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
^^^^
I’ve wondered about BMI ... It certainly adds a new dimension.

Hehehehe. Droll, very droll.