Sons of Guns

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:06 pm

Anyone else see this show? It follows this company out of Louisiana that makes custom AKs and rebuilds surplus machine guns and such. I'm half way between impressed and horrified at what they do on this show. I mean, a quad mount MG42 on a truck? That's cool and all, but who buys this shit? And the welding work on some of those guns looked absolutely horrendous.

I watched an episode last night where they went about building a 12-gauge minigun but didn't put the time they needed into it developing it and blew it up test firing. So then the guy ended up strapping three Saiga shotguns together spinning them around with an electric motor like a minigun. Ridiculous.

One pretty cool thing I saw was they rebuild a WWII-era 20mm Lahti anti-tank gun. Stuff like that is awesome, but half the stuff they do is just absolutely silly shit for TV.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:49 pm

Hah...I've been watching it for the last 2 hours...ironic you posted about it as I was watching. Great show...

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:35 am

Supressed 12ga Saiga Shotgun...(write up in Special Weapons Oct 2011
Nuff said

Honestly, at the development stage, horrendous welds can be tolerated. But from the press that has been cropping up on Red Jacket, his finished products are exquisite.

Its a "reality show" expect some hilarity in stupidity...anyone seen the Knife Gun or Arrow Gun yet...

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:26 pm

I've heard of this show. I have a hard time finding interest in reality based TV shows (Pawn Stars, bike building shows etc...) but this may be one I check out. I think I saw a clip of their work once, so I'll have to look into it.

UJ and Ray have guys seen any of the FPS Russia stuff on YouTube?

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:25 pm

LAwd, I LOVE FPS Russia. "C'mon, don't be beach" as he gets sprayed with pepper spray. What a trooper. Heh.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:56 pm

sinsual wrote:Supressed 12ga Saiga Shotgun...(write up in Special Weapons Oct 2011
Nuff said

Did anyone ask why? I mean, I know these guys make crazy shit for the fun of it, but you'd think anyone looking at it seriously would be like, "come on."

Honestly, at the development stage, horrendous welds can be tolerated. But from the press that has been cropping up on Red Jacket, his finished products are exquisite.

Oh yeah, the stuff he actually sells is probably well done. But if you catch that episode with the quad MG42s, look at them. It's obvious they were rushing the build for the TV show. A couple of the guns look okay, but the other two look horrible. I'm sure he doesn't want shoddy, rushed work going out on TV and being humiliated when it doesn't work. I wouldn't either. I guess the production doesn't pay him unless he meets a timeline or something. I can't think of any other way half of this shit is getting made.

Its a "reality show" expect some hilarity in stupidity...anyone seen the Knife Gun or Arrow Gun yet...

Yeah. It's silly stuff like that where I'm like, "please, just don't." And other times he has pretty good ideas, like a taser mounted on a shotgun (so the user has the choice of lethal or non-lethal right there on one weapon).

Serious Paul wrote:I've heard of this show. I have a hard time finding interest in reality based TV shows (Pawn Stars, bike building shows etc...) but this may be one I check out. I think I saw a clip of their work once, so I'll have to look into it.

Yeah, I'm the same way. But this show has its moments.

UJ and Ray have guys seen any of the FPS Russia stuff on YouTube?

Oh hells yeah.

This part is the best.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:27 am

Raygun wrote:non-lethal

Please let this be the last time this term passes your keyboard. It's bad enough this is the doctrinal term within the DOD.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:33 am

For fuck's sake, man. Make up your mind. Are you the DOD's bitch or not?

Less lethal than other shit? Not intended to be lethal? What's the correct terminology this week?

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:52 am

It's always ben less than lethal or some variation thereof. And then JP1-02 promulgates non-lethal....

And then D&D re-names subdual damage non-lethal....

I really don't care as what you say as lng as you don't claim hitting someone in the head with a combat boot going 350 mph can't kill them.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:28 am

GURPS doesn't have non lethal damage...

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:44 am

paladin2019 wrote:I really don't care as what you say as lng as you don't claim hitting someone in the head with a combat boot going 350 mph can't kill them.

Well, it probably wouldn't tickle...

Of course, you're right. Less lethal is the more correct terminology. Whatever you want to call it, I thought being able to mount a taser to anything with a rail was a good idea, though it seems that Taser has a similar product (X-rail). Would be nice to see a dedicated rail-mounted X2 or something similar that isn't so bulky.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:48 pm

Raygun wrote:Whatever you want to call it, I thought being able to mount a taser to anything with a rail was a good idea, though it seems that Taser has a similar product (X-rail). Would be nice to see a dedicated rail-mounted X2 or something similar that isn't so bulky.

I watched this episode too. I am torn on the idea of a weapon-mounted Taser. In theory, the ability to switch between less-lethal and lethal sounds like a great idea. In practice, I think the potential for pulling the wrong trigger would be rather high. There have already been incidents of officer shooting a person when they meant to use their Taser, and also of officers using their Taser when they should have fired their sidearm.

In carrying a firearm, the decision to shoot or not to shoot is pretty basic. If you decide not to shoot, and then want to switch to the Taser, you have to make a conscious action to holster/sling your weapon, draw the Taser and then fire it. If the Taser was weapon-mounted, then you would have to simply switch grips and triggers. To me, that leaves a lot of potential to get on the wrong trigger in the heat of the moment. Does that logic make sense to anyone but me?

But I can also see the appeal of it. If the Taser is weapon-mounted, you have quicker access to a less-lethal response....I just think that if we do that, there is a big chance the wrong choice could be made without that deliberate step of holstering the weapon and drawing the Taser.

Taser could also easily manufacture a weapon-mounted version that isn't designed to be carried in a holster...perhaps a picatinny-mounted system similar to a flashlight.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Serious Paul wrote:UJ and Ray have guys seen any of the FPS Russia stuff on YouTube?

I had not seen any of the FPS Russia stuff...very cool!

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:30 pm

RE: Picatinny Tasers. I'm of the opinion that if Tasers are deployed, they are the primary option; lethal is back-up. So a Picatinny option is less than ideal.

I say this without a Taser background. My less than lethal experience is bean bags and flares for the shotgun and foam batons and stingers for the grenade launcher. Doctrine is all lethal and less than lethal ammo is segregated on the body and lethal options are immediately available to the less than lethal gunner, either the rifle his M203 is attached to or his battle buddy's rifle.

Extending this to a Taser, I don't think you can go the Lawgiver route. If it replaced a tac-light on your sidearm, for example, I'm not sure how you segregate the triggers or design the training regiment to go Taser first. And I don't know what current police doctrine is, but I like the what I see on cops' batbelts with Tasers in the crossdraw postion; it means there is a conscious decision made to downgrade to lesss than lethal, one that sholdn't be made unless your partner has his sidearm ready.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:33 pm

Charlotte Plice have removed tasers from their officers after several problems, including atleast one death where it's believed the officers may have over used the tasers. Maybe they'll be back, maybe not.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:17 pm

UncleJoseph wrote:Taser could also easily manufacture a weapon-mounted version that isn't designed to be carried in a holster...perhaps a picatinny-mounted system similar to a flashlight.

Exactly, yeah. That's what I meant to suggest.

paladin2019 wrote:Extending this to a Taser, I don't think you can go the Lawgiver route. If it replaced a tac-light on your sidearm, for example, I'm not sure how you segregate the triggers or design the training regiment to go Taser first.

Your normal trigger hand operates the lethal in the conventional manner, the support hand operates the less lethal from the forearm or forward grip. The nice thing about an electronically-operated weapon is that the trigger can be made in any pretty much any fashion; it's not dependent on a mechanical device. For example, a double pressure switch method would make sense, where one button acts as a safety, the other as a trigger, and the weapon won't fire unless both are pressed (and of course the Taser can be disarmed entirely by an on/off switch or by removing the battery).

It could be made in a similar fashion to those light-integrated forward grips that Surefire makes, with a conventional trigger and safety setup, or it could be made more like a flashlight and remote pressure switch, or any other way you can imagine.

As far as training doctrine goes, I would leave it up to the discretion of the user, so long as he's made aware of the possible legal ramifications of bypassing the less-lethal option. I wouldn't imagine it would result in any more questions than are asked of officers who respond with firearms even though they carry Tasers today. Personally, I'm just thinking of it from the standpoint of home defense.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:32 am

Raygun wrote:As far as training doctrine goes, I would leave it up to the discretion of the user, so long as he's made aware of the possible legal ramifications of bypassing the less-lethal option. I wouldn't imagine it would result in any more questions than are asked of officers who respond with firearms even though they carry Tasers today.

"Chief, what we're the training standards when you deployed this new system?"

"Well, we left it to our indivdual officers after we briefed them on the legal issues."

"So, and correct me if I'm misrepresenting, you gave these guys a brand new piece of gear, one that can easily kill if it's mishandled, and you didn't train them. Does that about cover it, Chief?"

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:19 am

Well, no. I did not intend to sound quite so flippant about it, to suggest that no training would be necessary (though considering that officers are likely intimately familiar with each individual system already should cut down on the amount of training necessary regarding the specific system), or to suggest that I know the best way to train people in these matters.

What I was referring to specifically was the idea of "Taser first." I don't believe it should be an executive/administrative decision regarding how the system is employed. An officer should have the discretion to choose which weapon is appropriate at the time. That's all.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:08 am

[quote="Raygun"

What I was referring to specifically was the idea of "Taser first." I don't believe it should be an executive/administrative decision regarding how the system is employed. An officer should have the discretion to choose which weapon is appropriate at the time. That's all.[/quote]

What if they suck at it? I didn't just mention Charlotte Police for the shits and giggles: we've had some issues with out of control people(ok, he was black...) who got shocked to death. I've been on the recieving end of CMPD a few times, and while I basically freeze when guys in navy blue with hornet's nest emblems scream at me, not everyone does.

Like i mentioned, CMPD has removed taser fromr their officers kits. I haven't really noticed it, because for some reason, since I started driving*, i haven't run into cops much. But, there is a lot of anger about cops here, in this city(Charlotte, nc, if you didn't know), using tasers to shock the shit out of people. some of it may be misplace or whatever, but it is there.

And yeah, Andy? This means that my local PD hasn't digested your DoD approved rules, at all. "less than lethal", currently means shooting someone in the hip.

*except that time on my birthday when i had no insurance. It worked out pretty well, because i'm cute

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:45 pm

Bonefish wrote:What if they suck at it?

You mean what if the cop goes around Tasing people right and left? Then he gets dealt with no differently than he would if he were doing so with a standard Taser. If the department finds that Tasers make their officers trigger happy to an unacceptable degree, then they deal with that. I don't see how deploying a system like the one in question would change things a whole lot from how they are with most departments now. All it does is takes two tools that are already in the toolbox and combines them into one platform.

I didn't just mention Charlotte Police for the shits and giggles: we've had some issues with out of control people(ok, he was black...) who got shocked to death.

Do you guys seriously think I'm unaware that Tasers are capable of killing people? I know they can kill. I also know that they are much less likely to do so than a gunshot wound.

I've been on the recieving end of CMPD a few times, and while I basically freeze when guys in navy blue with hornet's nest emblems scream at me, not everyone does.

Then they should expect to get Tased or shot when they don't do what the guy with the Taser or gun tells them what to do. *shrug* I have little sympathy for stupidity.

Like i mentioned, CMPD has removed taser fromr their officers kits. I haven't really noticed it, because for some reason, since I started driving*, i haven't run into cops much. But, there is a lot of anger about cops here, in this city(Charlotte, nc, if you didn't know), using tasers to shock the shit out of people. some of it may be misplace or whatever, but it is there.

Maybe that was an appropriate administrative action to take. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know, it's not for me to decide. What I can tell you is that the GFPD carries them and that I have to date heard a few first-hand accounts of a Taser being put to use effectively. So far, everyone here seems to be okay with them. I know I'd rather they had the option available to them than not (as I would myself), but if it were to come to my attention that their use of Tasers was found to be excessive, I'd want that addressed and appropriate actions taken.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:42 pm

Yeah, on balance, I'd say that:

1. If Tasers aren't appropriate for your department, then Taser/Shotguns won't be, either.

2. The issue of having one tool doing two things, and being worried that someone will do the wrong thing in a moment of stress, is definitely a concern, but I think it'd at least be worth researching if training can drastically reduce or even eliminate that possibility, and then if the possible benefits would be worth the additional risk.

3. I'm not sure if "shotgun" would be the thing I'd want to put a Taser on; usually, if the cop got the shotgun out of his car, shit's past Tasering, but what the hell do I know?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:52 pm

Not to be offensive but I have a hard time picturing even the most rural department these days not having a training regimen. Yeah maybe you, as the front line consumer of law enforcement don't see the kind of customer service we'd like. And yeah maybe we run into a cop who has a bad attitude-but don't confuse that with no training.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:06 am

Supressed, select fire MK19? WHY!!? Good old-fashioned ridiculous.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:39 am

Raygun wrote:Supressed, select fire MK19? WHY!!? Good old-fashioned ridiculous.

And it makes for good television.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Raygun wrote:
Bonefish wrote:What if they suck at it?
You mean what if the cop goes around Tasing people right and left? Then he gets dealt with no differently than he would if he were doing so with a standard Taser. If the department finds that Tasers make their officers trigger happy to an unacceptable degree, then they deal with that. I don't see how deploying a system like the one in question would change things a whole lot from how they are with most departments now. All it does is takes two tools that are already in the toolbox and combines them into one platform.

It's not so much trigger happy, so much as the CMPD doctrine in regards to tasers was to use them as the first line of... "defense"? Rather than grapple and engage in physical combat with suspects, they'll just tase'em. Which, I totally understand: it's safer for all parties involved, generally. But We've had atleast two deaths in the last three years from tasers, and what I'm questioning is if the police have to correct doctrine in place for them, currently.

Do you guys seriously think I'm unaware that Tasers are capable of killing people? I know they can kill. I also know that they are much less likely to do so than a gunshot wound.

Not saying YOU don't know they can kill, I'm saying that some people definitely believe they are "safe". They are safER.

Maybe that was an appropriate administrative action to take. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know, it's not for me to decide. What I can tell you is that the GFPD carries them and that I have to date heard a few first-hand accounts of a Taser being put to use effectively. So far, everyone here seems to be okay with them. I know I'd rather they had the option available to them than not (as I would myself), but if it were to come to my attention that their use of Tasers was found to be excessive, I'd want that addressed and appropriate actions taken.

Sure, I'm just pointing out that there are problems with them being used. I don't expect my friends in the CMPD(and I've got a handful of them, so it's not like I'm just being all "fuck da man") to go into a street fight and break it up with their hands. I'm just saying that there have been deaths, and there's been some allegations about the cops being too eager to bust out those tasers.

Then again, I'm part of a rare group, who stops when he hears the cops yell at him. And I mean, while I don't want to be to sympathetic to the stupid: there are, for whatever reason, lots of stupid people in Charlotte.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:10 pm

Use of force policy what?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:38 pm

3278 wrote:Use of force policy what?

With out knowing the exact specifics-because while the film does paint a picture it does not paint the totality of the circumstances-I'd have a few questions, and as long as the officer could answer them appropriately I'd probably say it was not excessive force.

However the officer would need to articulate his reasonable perception of fear-for both himself, and others, which includes the combatants; why lesser alternatives couldn't be utilized-as I viewed the video it almost appeared as if the combatant who get's tased was about to attack the woman next to him so you can see where different people could reasonably see different things; and finally what the subject was doing.

Depending on how you wanted to view this video you could, I think, reasonably make a case for either side you chose to stand on this line. Which is why you'd need more information before pursuing other options in my opinion.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:07 pm

Every comment thread I've seen relating to that video basically makes exactly that point: not enough context. My only objection, on the surface, is what appears to be a lack of warning - although the audio isn't good enough to really tell for sure, and the video doesn't catch the officer's approach - and a jump immediately to tasering.

The former is just not possible to know, but the latter is a critical issue today: is it really better to just taser a dude than to try something else first. A lot of officers say, look, this is actually the /least/ injurious, risky thing we can do, for /everyone./ You want me in there punching dude in the face, or using my baton? The taser is going to hurt him a lot less than either of those things.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:19 pm

You can skip vast swaths of the use of force continuum if you have a reason. So for instance if the cop thought this combatant was using deadly force, and felt the need to protect the safety of others. But again it's all rampant speculation on my part.

As for why a taser and not a baton or a fist-both of those put the officers sidearm at risk in the fray.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:41 pm

Yeah, someone with better eyes than mine said they saw some object in the kid's hand, and that pretty much jumps force to lethal, unless it's a Nerf baton or something.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:57 pm

This is not directed to anyone in particular, since I've also read the articles and the YouTube comments..forgive the rant, but:

The police department's policy is probably similar to most other departments. Tasers can be used to deal with combative situations. From what I saw in the video, the two youths were engaged in a physical fight, not a verbal pissing match. Have any of you, other than Paul, broken up a real fight? A real, fisticuffs, punching and kicking for real fight? Well, I have...many times, and have gotten hurt. Other than what are termed "compliance controls," such as wristlocks, pressure points and some other stuff, Tasers are considered less severe than strikes and most strike-associated take-downs. Why do you think Paul gets hurt so often? Because breaking up fights is hazardous, injury-inducing work. I've been in numerous fights on the street, and have been injured.

In these situation, Tasers are completely acceptable, and can be used without warning. You want a warning? How about the law that says assault and battery is illegal? Isn't that warning enough? We shouldn't have to warn people that we're going to apply force to get them to stop actively breaking the law in a violent fashion, unless we're about to use deadly force. An active fight is considered on-going violence. Issuing several loud commands to "cease and desist" is rarely going to do much, and further, takes time (unlike Shadowrun, where long, drawn-out speeches take no time). Warnings, no matter how commanding or loud, are rarely effective in the heat of things. So while some officer might be issuing orders to stop fighting, the fight continues, however briefly, and further injury could result prior to officer engagement.

Additionally, people are wailing about the fact that the kid got shot in the face. Tasers are not nearly as accurate as a firearm, which is already hard to have skill with, even at those distances, under pressure. So while we expect officers to be accurate with their firearms, they cannot possibly be as accurate with a Taser, which shoots 2 darts connected to wires, in a fairly inaccurate manner (compared to guns), at a moving combatant. So the kid ended up taking a Taser in the face. I am sorry for that, and I'm also certain the officer did not aim for the face...if he did, he likely would not have connected. We are taught to aim at center of mass or just above the belt line...otherwise, you won't hit shit. They are that inaccurate.

Shit like this gets arm-chaired and Monday Morning Quarterbacked all the time, and will continue to do so, by outraged citizens, attorneys and the media, who cry foul at police action. That's fine, it's part of the job. But folks want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want the cops around to do their bidding, but hate it when the cops actually show up to do their actual jobs. People scream about police brutality all the time, and CANNOT put themselves in the officer's mindset. Context is everything, and officers are often crucified despite context, and despite actually having done what anyone (even reasonable citizens) would and should do in their shoes. It's popular and en vogue to shit on the police and demand that their brutality of the public come to an end. I've been accused of police brutality numerous times. You know how many times I've committed police brutality. Zero. Not once. Ever. I firmly believe in folks' constitutionally protected rights, and strive to protect people's rights. I acknowledge that there are plenty of asshole cops out there. While they do make up the vast minority of police, they still make the rest of us sick to our stomachs. The bad ones get all the press, and the good ones rarely get any notice or acknowledgement. And good cops make mistakes...we're human.

Tasers are a tool. Are they dangerous? They can be. Do they cause deaths? That's still up for debate, but there are some documented cases of taser-caused and/or taser-related deaths. Tasers fall into the same category as pepper spray in most force continua. Does that shock you? There are generally 2 cases where Tasers could kill someone...The first case is either constant, repeated jolts that cause a person to be unable to breathe (the jolt prevents someone from inhaling, generally). This is why each jolt has only a 5-second duration. The second case is when some underlying medical condition applies, and is aggravated by the Taser shock. In many of these cases, the same underlying medical conditions apply to the so-called "Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome" and/or "Excited Delirium." Some of the reasearch suggests that, even if a Taser had not been used, the same resultant death may have happened. More research is needed, but the same could be said about pepper spray or baton strikes (which often result in injury, by the way, as opposed to Tasers).

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:11 am

UncleJoseph wrote:You want a warning? How about the law that says assault and battery is illegal? Isn't that warning enough?

No, I don't think so. I understand that you do, because of your job and your experiences, but no, I don't think that just because you're doing something illegal means an officer can attack you without even giving you a chance to surrender. That may be naive of me, but there it is.

UncleJoseph wrote:Shit like this gets arm-chaired and Monday Morning Quarterbacked all the time, and will continue to do so, by outraged citizens, attorneys and the media, who cry foul at police action. That's fine, it's part of the job.

Mmm. That sounds a little uneven. I'm way on the side of the police typically, but let's not just dismiss people bringing up concerns about police abuse - which, to show the other side of the coin, does indeed happen very frequently, although probably not where you're going to see it - as just Monday Morning Quarterbacking by outraged citizens: part of your job really is to be scrutinized intensely by the citizens you protect, because, even though they should respect you for protecting them, the fact is, they also employ you. It's not a one-way street.

UncleJoseph wrote:But folks want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want the cops around to do their bidding, but hate it when the cops actually show up to do their actual jobs.

I don't doubt that some folks want just that, but, what the heck, did someone pee in your squad car today? Most of us just want to make sure that cops aren't going to beat the crap out of us without sufficient provocation to do that. Did that provocation exist in the above video? Well, actually, none of us know for sure in either direction, because just in the same way we can't condemn the officer with so little information, we can't vindicate him, either.

UncleJoseph wrote:Tasers fall into the same category as pepper spray in most force continua.

I haven't ever been tased, but I've been shocked pretty badly, and I can tell you I'd way rather be tased than pepper sprayed, much less struck with a baton. A lot gets made of tasers being brutal, but in many ways, they're a damn site better for everyone involved than any other option. I still like to hear a little attempt at verbal de-escalation, though: I haven't stopped a tenth as many fights as you have, but I've stopped more than my share, and without training, or equipment, or a badge, and I've gotten by pretty well in a lot of those cases with words first, grappling later. Would that have worked in this case? Quite possibly not, although we really don't know. As a police officer, I could make a very strong argument that I couldn't have taken that chance, for my own sake, and for the sake of everyone in and around the fight; as a citizen, I could make a pretty compelling argument that yelling, "Break it up!" as you move in probably ain't going to hurt anything.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:06 pm

UncleJoseph wrote:Have any of you, other than Paul, broken up a real fight? A real, fisticuffs, punching and kicking for real fight?

As a matter of fact, yes, yes I have. And I've seen attempts to break up a fight or stop it degenerate into mass brawls. So I totally understand where you are coming from with this.

3278 wrote:
UncleJoseph wrote:You want a warning? How about the law that says assault and battery is illegal? Isn't that warning enough?
No, I don't think so. I understand that you do, because of your job and your experiences, but no, I don't think that just because you're doing something illegal means an officer can attack you without even giving you a chance to surrender. That may be naive of me, but there it is.

C'mon Earl, this ain't exactly like you're jaywalking, and here comes Bobby Anger to beat your ass with a billy club. This is a case of people breaking the law in a violent fashion, one that could potentially end in the death or severe injury of either party, or both!
I think the cop was doing the right thing. Here was a violent incident, that could have escalated(what if one of those guys had a buddy or three?) into something far worse, nipped in the bud. Hell, just the presence of an ARMED OFFICER OF THE LAW should be a warning and "cease and desist" enough, without them shouting at you. And then there's the simple fact that in the heat of the moment, when you've got the adrenaline dumped in your blood, and things are going hectic? It's really fucking hard to understand words and correlate them to what is important: not getting your skull knocked in.

I'm all for preventing police abuse, and as someone who has seen it first hand, it's not hard to spot it. If the cop had walked up to a shouting match and tased someone? Fine. That's abuse. But what he did? Looks justifiable.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:44 pm

3278 wrote:No, I don't think so.[ I understand that you do, because of your job and your experiences, but no, I don't think that just because you're doing something illegal means an officer can attack you without even giving you a chance to surrender. That may be naive of me, but there it is.

I think I get where you're coming from, however this sort of thing is one of the things that as a society has evolved from a combination of things, and not all of them in what I'd call immediate history. Recent? by historical standards, absolutely-but immediate. And that kind of makes a difference, right or wrong.

I'm sure this crowd is a little more Google savvy and some of you may even actually know this, for an assortment of reasons-but I'd be willing to bet most American's don't understand why we have Miranda Rights, let alone why Miranda Warnings exist. We, as a society, have allowed Law&Order, CSI and TV in general color how we actually see the law-but often in reality it's not as simple, or as cut and dry as it might seem on NCIS.

The standards set forth are often not something the public is as aware of as they should be.

Edit

Crap hit enter not preview. Will come back and finish this. I promise.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:58 pm

UncleJoseph wrote:Shit like this gets arm-chaired and Monday Morning Quarterbacked all the time, and will continue to do so, by outraged citizens, attorneys and the media, who cry foul at police action. That's fine, it's part of the job.

He's not kidding. Having been through this process numerous times what makes it frustrating isn't that someone is checking on what I'm doing. I expect that. What makes it so frustrating is that the people doing the "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" often lack the training to understand how to judge what I do. Many, if not a majority, haven't found themselves in a Use of Force scenario that's real, or even text book.

This is a lot like me trying to tell 3278 how to build a computer or DV8 how to build a website because I logged onto Bulldrek a few times.

Mmm. That sounds a little uneven. I'm way on the side of the police typically, but let's not just dismiss people bringing up concerns about police abuse - which, to show the other side of the coin, does indeed happen very frequently, although probably not where you're going to see it - as just Monday Morning Quarterbacking by outraged citizens: part of your job really is to be scrutinized intensely by the citizens you protect, because, even though they should respect you for protecting them, the fact is, they also employ you. It's not a one-way street.

I absolutely agree. However I do think that there are ways of doing this that are smarter. In my case I've been suggesting, in my official capacity as a Union representative that when we have a question concerning Use of Force we start with a trio of trainers. I know people think of the "Thin Blue Line" as the standard defense to any scenario, but in reality if we see someone dead wrong we're going to call them on it.

There are, however, some cases that need to be looked at after that-regardless of what the Departmental level view is-by an independent agency. However hiring a butcher to install your air vents isn't something you'd do, so why would handle this any different? I know with a certainty you can find a Use of Force expert to hire, on a contractual basis, to look at these issues.

I think Uncle Joseph and I see this same way. It's not that we object to Civilian Oversight-but rather that we'd like CO that was effective, and impartial.

UncleJoseph wrote:But folks want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want the cops around to do their bidding, but hate it when the cops actually show up to do their actual jobs.

I don't doubt that some folks want just that, but, what the heck, did someone pee in your squad car today? Most of us just want to make sure that cops aren't going to beat the crap out of us without sufficient provocation to do that. Did that provocation exist in the above video? Well, actually, none of us know for sure in either direction, because just in the same way we can't condemn the officer with so little information, we can't vindicate him, either.

I still like to hear a little attempt at verbal de-escalation, though: I haven't stopped a tenth as many fights as you have, but I've stopped more than my share, and without training, or equipment, or a badge, and I've gotten by pretty well in a lot of those cases with words first, grappling later.

It's like anything. Right tool for the right job. I've deescalated literally thousands of situations with humor, and wit. I'm sure many of us have. This is a line of work, Law Enforcement and Military, that requires individuals to make snap, split second decisions. Often with inadequate training, inadequate tools and the knowledge you're going to be viewed by many as the problem, not as a professional.

Would that have worked in this case? Quite possibly not, although we really don't know. As a police officer, I could make a very strong argument that I couldn't have taken that chance, for my own sake, and for the sake of everyone in and around the fight; as a citizen, I could make a pretty compelling argument that yelling, "Break it up!" as you move in probably ain't going to hurt anything.

And what makes this sad, is say that he could have said something. Say he just got excited and forgot, or was shocked and just went straight to the taser. Now what? What is the proper response from the community? From individuals?

I've been confronted on numerous occasions by people I've used force to control. It's an interesting conversation, let me tell you that.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:58 pm

Bonefish wrote:As a matter of fact, yes, yes I have. And I've seen attempts to break up a fight or stop it degenerate into mass brawls. So I totally understand where you are coming from with this.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but there's also a difference between just some dude breaking up a fight, and their obligations and what my own obligations are as uniformed officer, or say Uncle Joseph's are as a duly sworn officer of the law.

All of these things can change the perspective we view use of force with.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:55 am

Bonefish wrote:C'mon Earl, this ain't exactly like you're jaywalking, and here comes Bobby Anger to beat your ass with a billy club. This is a case of people breaking the law in a violent fashion, one that could potentially end in the death or severe injury of either party, or both!

Yeah, I definitely understand that. But I've been in fights, and I don't think it would be appropriate if, in the middle of that fight, with no warning or notification or anything at all, a cop jumped in and tased me. As a citizen, I recognize that I have a responsibility not to assault people, but I don't think that means that as soon as I assault someone, it's okay for an officer to use force on me without warning. I'd like the option, as a citizen, to stop and think.

Bonefish wrote:I think the cop was doing the right thing.

I don't think we can know that. I don't think there's enough context to the video to tell us if the officer was right or wrong.

Bonefish wrote:Hell, just the presence of an ARMED OFFICER OF THE LAW should be a warning and "cease and desist" enough, without them shouting at you.

I don't think "presence" means "knowledge."

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:57 am

3278 wrote:I don't think we can know that. I don't think there's enough context to the video to tell us if the officer was right or wrong.

I think this is the bottom line. We can speculate till we've rationalized our own points of view, but in the end it's all just that: Speculation.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:03 am

Serious Paul wrote:I absolutely agree. However I do think that there are ways of doing this that are smarter. In my case I've been suggesting, in my official capacity as a Union representative that when we have a question concerning Use of Force we start with a trio of trainers. I know people think of the "Thin Blue Line" as the standard defense to any scenario, but in reality if we see someone dead wrong we're going to call them on it.

Seems like what you'd want - for everyone's benefit - is some people who are impartial but really well-informed. I guess those are "judges," but I mean at this beginning level: someone who isn't a cop, who isn't employed by any of the agencies involved, but who is familiar with the Use of Force policies, etc. A contracted expert, as you say, but it doesn't seem like you're going to get a lot of people with that combination of qualities, sadly.

Serious Paul wrote:I think Uncle Joseph and I see this same way. It's not that we object to Civilian Oversight-but rather that we'd like CO that was effective, and impartial.

That's what everyone wants! Unfortunately, too often the CO isn't knowledgeable, and the non-civilians aren't necessarily impartial; more importantly, they can't be reliably guaranteed to be impartial.

Serious Paul wrote:And what makes this sad, is say that he could have said something. Say he just got excited and forgot, or was shocked and just went straight to the taser. Now what? What is the proper response from the community? From individuals?

Well, that's the thing. I think inappropriate use of force should be punished, but it seems like what happens is that the punishment for a single error in a bad situation can often be total: an officer can lose his job for one minor omission that might not even have endangered someone. This is part of the job, sure: the stakes are life and death, so the officers have to understand that the penalties can be harsh, too, but I think they're often too harsh, which means someone along the way is going to try to protect the officer through dishonest means because they're going to get the book thrown at them instead of a page, and pretty soon everyone's a crook and no one's being honest or impartial.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:41 am

Serious Paul wrote:
Bonefish wrote:As a matter of fact, yes, yes I have. And I've seen attempts to break up a fight or stop it degenerate into mass brawls. So I totally understand where you are coming from with this.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but there's also a difference between just some dude breaking up a fight, and their obligations and what my own obligations are as uniformed officer, or say Uncle Joseph's are as a duly sworn officer of the law.

All of these things can change the perspective we view use of force with.

I understand that, and I definitely don't think breaking up a few fights between drunks makes me an expert or anything. But the more you share your experiences and perspective, the more I learn and the more it colors my own attitudes and how I respond when in those situations, and also police officers(I don't deal with COs at all, a fact that I am thankful for, everyday). I try to remember that while these guys may seem like dicks with badges at times, they could be guys just like you or Joe.

I just think that the video shown, I don't think the police officer is out of line. I don't feel that the video makes me think the officer was making an unreasonable use of force. What was he supposed to do, run up and get in between the two guys? I mean, the audio is kind of crap, and i don't hear any shouts to stop, but we also don't know how far away the officer is. I just don't see anything that makes me want to stand up and say: that's wrong! It's not like the video of a guy in custody around here(I think maybe in morganton, nc) getting beat with a club while in shackles and handcuffs. That was clearly wrong, easy to call.

The video doesn't make me doubtful enough to think that the officer stepped out of bounds. Now, granted, I'm not the officer, or anyone with the decades of experience you or joe can claim. But, if the officer is wrong, where is he wrong at?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:48 pm

Bonefish wrote:I just think that the video shown, I don't think the police officer is out of line.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Paul disagrees with you. Actually, I'm pretty sure the only person who's saying it's even particularly arguable is me.

Bonefish wrote:But, if the officer is wrong, where is he wrong at?

We don't know. Let's again say, we don't know. There's not enough context to answer that question.

But on initial review, I would say the officer is wrong in approaching without warning, and tasing one person without notification, when that person was backing away from the fight and the officer. An argument can be made that the suspect - by the way, we don't even know if that suspect was guilty of assault; he could have well been the defender in the fight, which is another reason it'd be nice if he'd been given a little more choice - was running toward the person in the doorway at the 20 second mark, but his head is facing the officer: it appears [from the horrible, contextless YouTube video!] that he has seen the officer, and is fleeing, and no one is in urgent danger, and the officer, who has approached with weapon drawn [not a ridiculous choice under the circumstances], fires anyway. And, again, on initial inspection, without context, that looks to me like something that should concern us as being possible abuse of force.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:56 pm

3278 wrote:
Bonefish wrote:I just think that the video shown, I don't think the police officer is out of line.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Paul disagrees with you. Actually, I'm pretty sure the only person who's saying it's even particularly arguable is me.

I think I don't know enough to make decision one way or the other. I could see arguments for many facets of this issue.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:40 pm

My only real issue with it is why he didn't yell something while he was running in. It wasn't really an extra step or effort, and if the folks had stopped after hearing "STOP! POLICE!" while the dude charges in with his Taser drawn...great, less work all around. If they don't, drop 'em. It's just personal preference speaking there, so there's nothing for me to back it up with. It just seems weird that he couldn't put out the effort to shout two simple commands, even if they don't necessarily have an effect. If they do have an effect, great! If not, well, it's simply wasted breath.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:56 pm

Although he still has several steps up on Lone Star: *blam*blam* "Freeze!"

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:01 pm

And for all we know he did yell, off camera somewhere. Again I am in no rush to pass judgment here.

I think that we have the option to discuss this sort of thing puts leaps and bounds over many countries out there. This isn't to say we can't get better-but hey we're not in Stalin's Soviet Union!

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:55 pm

Serious Paul wrote:And for all we know he did yell, off camera somewhere. Again I am in no rush to pass judgment here.

Sure. I'm just going by what I can see and hear, which obviously isn't the whole story.

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:45 am

3278 wrote:
Bonefish wrote:C'mon Earl, this ain't exactly like you're jaywalking, and here comes Bobby Anger to beat your ass with a billy club. This is a case of people breaking the law in a violent fashion, one that could potentially end in the death or severe injury of either party, or both!
Yeah, I definitely understand that. But I've been in fights, and I don't think it would be appropriate if, in the middle of that fight, with no warning or notification or anything at all, a cop jumped in and tased me. As a citizen, I recognize that I have a responsibility not to assault people, but I don't think that means that as soon as I assault someone, it's okay for an officer to use force on me without warning. I'd like the option, as a citizen, to stop and think.

In the middle of a fight, not just a simple I am going to beat your ass cause you deserve it, but a fight that is leaning to lethal consequences, do you think your going to pay attention to some voice coming from outside of your tunnel vision telling you to stop?

I have seen A LOT of video over the last 4 years from bar fights. Combatants who are drunk and or high do not pay attention to anyone yelling at them. Many of them don't even realize that the hand placed on their shoulder attempting to separate them belongs to a bouncer and or Police Officer their friend or girlfriend. All they feel is another attack on their person while in the middle of a fight. In some of the videos (where LEO arrives while fight is still going on), you can see the officers giving verbal warnings before resorting to some form of ranged, less than lethal force. Often, pepper spray from arms length away in BOTH combatants faces has a decided effect, in a couple of others, the officer and his partner each pick a combatant and then taze both. In the videos where they did go in by hand, they attacks/actions were to cause the combatants to fall away from each other if standing, or if on the ground, to grab the top combatant in a manner to make them lose their balance or to pull away from the bottom combatant while keeping themselves out of line of retaliation.

Doesn't always work as planned, but you can see the attempts to follow a set procedure/protocol, much like a Flow Chart.

The ONLY time in any of the video footage I have seen where an Officer pulls a firearm is when a weapon is spotted on a combatant/within reach of a combatant or in the hand of a combatant (LA Bar fight, someone ran to their car to get a gun and tossed it into the middle of the pile of 5-7 people pounding on 3 others). Yes, we have footage of officers using lethal force (provided during discovery for trial). Not once in the very few times it came to that were the officers reprimanded for excessive force. Their actions were totally and truly justified.

Pick at your leisure...No I can not provide footage, Evidence is still evidence.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:56 am

Sin kinds of hits it on the head(heh.. head.. sin.. same sentence. hehe). When your adrenal glands are pumping "fight! Run!" into your bloodstream and you're all set on beating up that bum with the folding seat? A shouted phrase or gentle(or not so gentle) touch ain't gonna amount to shit.

I personally don't feel like the video shows enough for us to say that the officer was being a dick or acting in good faith. And when that happens? Strangely enough? I side with the fucking officer.

Like i said, it doesn't make my "police abuse" sense tingle. Now, if the cops had some black kid up against a wall, and slammed his head into the wall repeatedly because he had a few quarters in his hand and wouldn't unclench it? Yeah, that's abuse.

But some drunk trying to beat up a drunk homeless guy? Tase the fuck out of'em.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:34 pm

sinsual wrote:In the middle of a fight, not just a simple I am going to beat your ass cause you deserve it, but a fight that is leaning to lethal consequences, do you think your going to pay attention to some voice coming from outside of your tunnel vision telling you to stop?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My apocryphal experience suggests that's common: sometimes notification will break up a fight, sometimes it won't. But unless there's some tactical reason not to, why not provide warning? I agree heartily that it often won't work, but what is the harm, then, in offering it anyway, unless such a tactical exception exists?

Moreover, in this specific instance, the officer's approach was noticed, and the suspect broke off from the fight to flee the officer, and was then tased without warning. This, then, has nothing at all to do with an officer trying to break up a fight with notification and failing.

sinsual wrote:The ONLY time in any of the video footage I have seen where an Officer pulls a firearm is when a weapon is spotted on a combatant/within reach of a combatant or in the hand of a combatant....

That's excellent. The officers you've seen have all been excellent officers, just and fair, who haven't made errors. That's truly the goal of everyone. But it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not this officer, in this situation, used this weapon in a way that's in keeping with both our expectations of justice and the policies of his department.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:43 pm

Bonefish wrote:I personally don't feel like the video shows enough for us to say that the officer was being a dick or acting in good faith. And when that happens? Strangely enough? I side with the fucking officer.

Well, I think that's illogical. In the absence of evidence, we shouldn't side with anyone. In the presence of a video that shows a suspect exiting a fight, fleeing from an officer, and being tased without warning anyway, we should certainly not be biased toward the officer; my tendency would be to say we don't have enough evidence to judge the situation, but that we do have enough that questions need to be asked.

Bonefish wrote:But some drunk trying to beat up a drunk homeless guy? Tase the fuck out of'em.

That's not the way I think it should work. That "drunk" is a human being and a citizen the officer is sworn to protect. He's not guilty of anything until he's been so judged, and until then he deserves the full legal protection provided him. He doesn't get tased the fuck out of just because he's "some drunk." That's dehumanizing and shameful. That's fucked up. And to relate it to this situation is absurd, since there's no evidence to suggest the suspect was "drunk" or otherwise sub-human in your eyes, and he had disengaged from the fight and was fleeing when he got tased the fuck out of.

People who bag on cops because it's cool drive me crazy. My two best friends are cops, and when someone's down on the profession just because that's the thing to do, I don't hesitate to educate them. But it's just as wrong-headed to blindly, in the absence of sufficient evidence, support the cop just because he's a cop. Standards of evidence don't change just because we respect the profession.