Video of gun-grab attempt

[MA-Caver]

but the only 100% sure method to keep him from grabbing the gun would have been to step up, place your barrel against his head, and pull the trigger.

Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain.

He made the decision to go after a firearm (thereby freely accepting the consequences of that decision) and the only way to ensure the safety of innocents in cases like this is to neutralize the threat ASAP.

From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that.
Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't know how to use the multi-function thingy for quotes so I will try and address the points as I remember them.

First, let me preface by saying this is my department and I am friends with everyone in that video (at least the ones wearing brown. LOL) Second, I am one of our PPCT training instructors and we used this to illustrate certain points of what to do/not to do.

1) Not on video, but the inmate was in leg irons. Up until that point he had not caused problems while being incarcerated. if you look at the video clip again, you will see yellow tape across part of the gallery. We were expecting more trouble from the family side so that is where the focus was aimed. That was also the reason for the other deputies and TASER that were right there.

2) Bailiff's in our county are NOT armed. The people you see in the video are fully sworn LEO's even though they are currently assigned to the transport division.

3) Before the incident in Atlanta, our department saw the need for the deputies (non-road) that worked in close proxemity of inmates to have a higher level security holster. We switched to level 3 holsters due to the prediction of some progressive firearms instructors that they would need more security than speed. As a side note, I was one of the people that did the main evaluation for the level 3 holsters and picked that particular holster. One of the things that I liked about it is, that unless you are in the driver's seat and know how it works it doesn't come out, but if you do it is still easy to draw. I had a couple guys from our local ERT who also compete MMA try to unholster mine without me even trying to resist them and they were both unable to get past the first level (thumb strap). I know nothing is absolutely fullproof, but there is a HIGH level of protection with that particular holster.

4) Easy to second guess NOT shooting the guy, but again in close quarters like that wrestling around you have to worry about your other officers and pass-through rounds. After this incident we did alot of scenarios with gun grabs and deploying your own duty knife if you have to secure your firearm and can't draw it. Also, as we discussed in AAR's you have to have the mindset and training AHEAD of time to be able to act under pressure.

We were all lucky that it didn't go worse, and truly feel that it was a wake-up call with lots of lessons to learn from without as much pain as it could have been.

Good points all!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain.

That should never be a consideration when deciding what level of force is required by the situation. Such distracting thoughts at the time gets cops killed.

From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that.
Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.

True....at least for anyone who's job is direct control of the prisoner. Disarming all officers in the courtroom is a recipe for disaster.

 

[MA-Caver]

Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain.

That should never be a consideration when deciding what level of force is required by the situation. Such distracting thoughts at the time gets cops killed.

Sorry, my remark was made tongue in cheek, however true it may have been. But either way I cannot see the justification of an officer simply putting his sidearm against a prisoner's temple and pulling the trigger... unless they were also armed (succeeding in obtaining another officer's weapon) and ready to fire that gun at ANYONE, that image is just too... Nazism/Communism or whatever "ism" you want to call it. Also discharging a weapon into a struggling MASS of people hoping that the prisoner doesn't jerk his head out of the way at the last possible second is just too much of a risk. Likewise the bullet will pass through the skull, the brain and through the skull again and continue traveling... alibet at a slower speed ... say a loss of a couple hundred feet per second but still fast enough to continue into the body of an officer trying to restrain him.
Guards are NOT executioners and the prisoner WAS heavily outnumbered and in process of being subdued. He'd been tasered as well so that should well put him out of the fight.

From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that. Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.

True....at least for anyone who's job is direct control of the prisoner. Disarming all officers in the courtroom is a recipe for disaster.

Maybe, but there are other officers outside the court room that could be called in at a moment's notice who are armed. Prisoners of that caliber should be restrained at all times via handcuffs attached to belts and ankle chains that limit anything more than an ambling shuffle. They can thrash around but not do too much.

 

[terryl965]

It is for reasons like this that we do A LOT of defensives against gun grabs drills...Training MUST be ONGONG and CONTINUEOUS..

This is ooo true Drac and still people believ once they learn it it is always there.

 

[MA-Caver]

This is sooo true Drac and still people believe once they learn it it is always there.

Well, when you think about it... it is always there... just not as effective compared to ... say, practicing it on a regular/frequent basis. :uhyeah:

I mean I can probably do the TKD roundhouse kick but most likely will end up on my *** immediately afterwards. :idunno:

 

[Drac]

This is ooo true Drac and still people believ once they learn it it is always there.

That is an one of the going problems and attitudes when in comes to in house training...Many officers believe that the skills they aquired in the academy 5-20 years ago will be there if needed...Now if you had to deal with physical altercations everyday since you graduated the academy,then yes..However some of these officers have NEVER had a physical confrontation..Many believe that they don't need any of that 'ka-rotty" crap because they carry a gun...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sorry, my remark was made tongue in cheek, however true it may have been. But either way I cannot see the justification of an officer simply putting his sidearm against a prisoner's temple and pulling the trigger... unless they were also armed (succeeding in obtaining another officer's weapon) and ready to fire that gun at ANYONE, that image is just too... Nazism/Communism or whatever "ism" you want to call it. Also discharging a weapon into a struggling MASS of people hoping that the prisoner doesn't jerk his head out of the way at the last possible second is just too much of a risk. Likewise the bullet will pass through the skull, the brain and through the skull again and continue traveling... alibet at a slower speed ... say a loss of a couple hundred feet per second but still fast enough to continue into the body of an officer trying to restrain him.
Guards are NOT executioners and the prisoner WAS heavily outnumbered and in process of being subdued. He'd been tasered as well so that should well put him out of the fight.

WTF do you think his hand was around the grip of? A lollypop?! And what do you think his intent was a friendly game of slap and tickle?

A weapon, intent and a delivery system.....that is what justifies lethal force for law enforcement.....this guy had all three.

Want to tell how long in fractions of seconds it takes to fire that gun once it clears the holster?

And what does being outnumbered matter if he gets the gun free?

By the way, skulls are excellent bullet stoppers.

Maybe, but there are other officers outside the court room that could be called in at a moment's notice who are armed. Prisoners of that caliber should be restrained at all times via handcuffs attached to belts and ankle chains that limit anything more than an ambling shuffle. They can thrash around but not do too much.

I agree with the last part....a belly chain and leg shackles would have reduced his mobility.

 

[CHAOS]

WTF do you think his hand was around the grip of? A lollypop?! And what do you think his intent was a friendly game of slap and tickle?

A weapon, intent and a delivery system.....that is what justifies lethal force for law enforcement.....this guy had all three.

Want to tell how long in fractions of seconds it takes to fire that gun once it clears the holster?

And what does being outnumbered matter if he gets the gun free?

By the way, skulls are excellent bullet stoppers.


I agree with the last part....a belly chain and leg shackles would have reduced his mobility.

As for bullet stopping skulls, Id rather not take that chance if my partner is on the other side. And I dont know what the laws are in Ga., but I am an LEO in Texas. And you would be crazy to use deadly force in that situation with that much backup. You would deffinately lose the civil suit, but you may be charged with deadly conduct, excessive force, negligent homocide, or even murder. You see, in my world its not what you should have done, but, how the public sees what you did. In that case dont expect to get 100% backing from your department if you shoot the suspect at point blank range with 4 large men holding on to him. The public will see that as an execution, not justifiable homocide. And the DA will run with the public since he is an elected official here.
There are many different aspects of "self defense" in law enforcement

And its been established by the US Supreme court that a defendant is not receiving a "fair trail" if he is in hadcuffs and leg restraints because it gives the impression of "guilt" to the jury and therefore makes it a biased jury. Now after the guilty verdict, he is the property of the state and they can immediatly restrain him.

There is a whole lot more the job than most people realize.

 

[Archangel M]

I disagree. If hes grabbing for a weapon hes a deadly force threat. Screw perception if it means someone getting killed. Backup or not, a deadly threat is a deadly threat. Courtroom security needs some revision, espically after the slaughter in that Atlanta courtroom a couple of years ago.

I think shock belts are a solution. Put it under the clothes and zap his *** if he gets out of hand.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As for bullet stopping skulls, Id rather not take that chance if my partner is on the other side. And I dont know what the laws are in Ga., but I am an LEO in Texas. And you would be crazy to use deadly force in that situation with that much backup. You would deffinately lose the civil suit, but you may be charged with deadly conduct, excessive force, negligent homocide, or even murder. You see, in my world its not what you should have done, but, how the public sees what you did. In that case dont expect to get 100% backing from your department if you shoot the suspect at point blank range with 4 large men holding on to him. The public will see that as an execution, not justifiable homocide. And the DA will run with the public since he is an elected official here.
There are many different aspects of "self defense" in law enforcement

And its been established by the US Supreme court that a defendant is not receiving a "fair trail" if he is in hadcuffs and leg restraints because it gives the impression of "guilt" to the jury and therefore makes it a biased jury. Now after the guilty verdict, he is the property of the state and they can immediatly restrain him.

There is a whole lot more the job than most people realize.

First of all, whether he's receiving a fair trial is up to the judge and other judges, so that question is entirely outside the realm of control of the officers involved......it's a non-issue from an LEO standpoint. The judge controls the court room, and decides how he wants prisoners brought in.

Second of all, having lots of 'backup' is not a decider about whether someone is a legitimate threat......how much back up did the two dead Oakland SWAT officers have when they were storming the building? Dozens?

As for what the 'public' sees it as, the public is generally WRONG! Had this guy managed to break the holster it wouldn't matter how many 'large men' were holding him down......several of them would be shot.

In any lethal force situation there are three important questions.....

Is there intent?
Is there a weapon?
Is there a delivery system to bring that weapon to bear?


I'm not second-guessing these guys, maybe i'd have done the same thing......but the conclusion that this is NOT a 'lethal force' situation because they outnumber him is, well......caca.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I disagree. If hes grabbing for a weapon hes a deadly force threat. Screw perception if it means someone getting killed. Backup or not, a deadly threat is a deadly threat. Courtroom security needs some revision, espically after the slaughter in that Atlanta courtroom a couple of years ago.

I think shock belts are a solution. Put it under the clothes and zap his *** if he gets out of hand.

You're absolutely correct, and since a shock belt isn't visible to the jury, the issue of it somehow influencing their decision is a non-issue.