Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
Is that a trick question?Are you guys done beating up on foszoe yet?
Is that a trick question?Are you guys done beating up on foszoe yet?
Is that a trick question?
Probably,
He ran his mouth, you guys smacked him for it, just wondering if it was over or still going on.
Meh..... the only thing I want to know, is if the officer really shot him with a revolver like the article says?
Batons are less lethal but the CAN be lethal or SBI depending on where the strikes are. However, it certainly shouldn't be a "go-to" option in this scenario. Your observation is correct.More on topic, as far as batons go, I was under the impression that a baton properly deployed (usually to the knee) by a trained officer is actually considered a "non-lethal" instrument. As such it is intended to be used in less demanding situations, where the officer is not in danger.
So any of the "activists" wondering why the officer did not deploy a baton aren't really making a fair suggestion. The officer is trained to use the baton as a non lethal tool, whereas Mr. Flagpole is using his metal spear in a potentially lethal manner. If the officer needs to employ lethal force, he'll just go to his gun, not try to swordfight. (Although I'd be a big fan of officers carrying swords, because that would be awesome.)
Probably,
He ran his mouth, you guys smacked him for it, just wondering if it was over or still going on.
Frank and yourself are so intent at reading what you want to read instead of what I have written that further conversation is pointless. Several times, I have said the officer was justified in very clear language. Yet you both resort to telling me what I clearly implied without considering what I clearly wrote.
More on topic, as far as batons go, I was under the impression that a baton properly deployed (usually to the knee) by a trained officer is actually considered a "non-lethal" instrument.
Ah, nevermind, I'm not done. Have you considered your wrote without any regard for how it would clearly be perceived? Frank's pretty well covered it. It's the exact same as me going to a thread on an emergency landing of a passenger jet and saying "well, I'm trained in the flight of tethered hot air balloons, and I would have landed the plane like this...." and then said something completely wrong. It's being perceived as it is because I've claimed some level of expertise. It is incredibly tiresome to have years of experience, actual training, and then to make decisions in split seconds and then be picked apart by people who weren't there, who have zero expertise in the arena, etc. If you want to talk about how you as a civilian would react, great, but perhaps putting it in a thread about an LEO shooting is not the place to do it.
I considered the original question...
Your years of experience have colored your perceptions of what I have written.
Any further education will require tuition, I'm done giving my expertise for free.
When, where, and how much?
And that was before the virtal hug! and a serious question.
Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?
The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.
To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.
Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.
Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.
Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.
Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?
The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.
To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.
Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.
Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.
Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.
Where were you trained and by who? What was covered? Basic psychology of a violent attack? OODA loop? Tactical positioning? Body language that invites an attack vs body language that helps prevent an attack? Body language clues attackers show immediately before the assault?
The officer made a better decision in two seconds under adrenaline dump falling back on his training, then you made with the benefit of hindsight, a cool mental state, and unlimited time to sit and formulate a plan.
To do your "end run" do you plan to turn your back on your assailant or do you plan to backpedal off a curb? Either way, you've increased your chances of being assaulted and decreased your odds of prevailing in the assault.
Turning your back increases the odds of being assaulted unless you KEEP running and are faster. This is conflict 101 stuff, if you're unfamiliar I'd recommend you pick up "On Killing" by LTC Grossman. Real simply put, when you turn your back you don't have a face, you are dehumanized, and it is psychologically easier to assault you. It also triggers a basic chase response, you are acting like prey and will be treated as such. So you've increased your odds of being assaulted. You've also lost sight of your attacker and reset your own OODA loop. You must now find him again visually, and you'll start with where you think he will be, if he's not there, you experience mental shock, and start over. You've lost a significant tactical advantage because you chose to not keep eyes on your attacker while he could keep eyes on you. He's already observed, oriented, and can decide and act at his leisure. You're starting at square 1, maybe twice.
Or you plan to back pedal off a curb while boxed in by a car. You're going to walk blindly and figure you're not going to stumble or fall as you back pedal off a drop at some point. Again, triggering a prey response (wobbling like your wounded or actually falling), resetting your own OODA loop again as you're surprised, and again giving your opponent the tactical advantage. Now you have to reorient, you've broken your fighting stance, and things are going sideways while you try to catch up.
Standing your ground, assertively ordering the suspect to stop, presenting a weapon, all things that more often than not cause an attacker with a non-projectile weapon to rethink their attack and surrender or flee. Hind sight says it didn't work in this case so the officer elevated his use of force accordingly. However by the numbers, his actions prevent more attacks than fleeing or stumbling does.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BehindBlueI's again.
FOP President lashes out at 'sensationalists, liars and race-baiters'
The full press release is here.
The Mayor's reply didn't even achieve a level of wimpyness. What's south of wimpy, mamby-pamby?I saw that yesterday. I'm glad the man spoke out so openly in defense of his officers. The Louisville mayor's wimpy response was disturbing.
I wish the FOP would also address the asinine comments from people who can't understand why the officer didn't shoot to wound the perp.
The Mayor's reply didn't even achieve a level of wimpyness. What's south of wimpy, mamby-pamby?