Quanell X goes through use of force training…

Can’t wait to see this! Quanell X, like so many others, has run his mouth for years about what is and is not a justifiable use of force with no knowledge or experience on which to base his assumptions. We’ve seen another “activist” go through this recently and unsurprisingly, he found himself lighting folks up like the 4th of July. I strongly suspect Quanell will have a similar experience but, the question is, will he be honest about his experience and will it cause him to look at things differently?

-GM

GOTR’s hearts and prayers are with the families of NYPD officers Ramos and Liu

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s ­assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

via Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner | New York Post.

 

This isn’t “revenge.” This was the cold-blooded murder of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. There’s no justification for it. Regardless of how one feels about Garner, Brown, Rice, or anyone else, this is wrong and neither of these officers deserved this. No good can come of it and one can only hope this isn’t a sign of things to come.

-GM

When calling 911 goes wrong

According the kgw.com, a man who called 911 about a shooting suspect ended up getting shot by responding officers in Vancouver, Washington last week. The incident started when John Kendall, 59, shot his neighbor, Abigail Mounce, in the face on October 31. Officers spotted the man who’d called 911, not knowing he was still in the area.

A SWAT team arriving at the scene spotted a man who matched Kendall’s description. They were unaware that the citizen who called 911 was still there.

 

“Law enforcement personnel watched as the citizen (believed to be Kendall) exited his vehicle and circled behind his trunk,” police explained. “Fearing that he armed himself, law enforcement fired multiple shots at the individual in order to stop the perceived threat before the citizen could enter the woods.”
via Police mistakenly shoot 911 caller during manhunt.

Now I could be wrong but, I suspect there are a lot of cops who will find this acceptable/justifiable given the circumstances. You’ve traced the suspect’s phone to the area. The person in view allegedly looks like your suspect. And he looks like he’s potentially arming himself.

The man was shot in the leg. He took cover behind a gravel pile and fired a shot back, then he called 911 again, this time to report that he had been shot.

via Police mistakenly shoot 911 caller during manhunt.

There’s so much fail here but, I’m glad the citizen survived. He’s lucky. Very lucky. Chances are high, the leg wound is a result of an excited officer shooting at an unknown distance, resulting in the shot going low.  I say that because shooting him in the leg intentionally is surely a violation of policy and demonstrably, did nothing to eliminate the threat of him shooting at anyone. This is why we do not shoot to wound.

Fortunately, things didn’t go any further than the initial exchange of gunfire. The officers involved have been relieved of duty pending an investigation. By the time officers caught up with Kendall, the real suspect, he’d already turned himself off with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I might argue this error is big enough that they might not get to be cops any more but, I don’t believe this was criminal behavior on their part.

All that said, there’s something to be learned here. Starting with, DON’T BE THERE. If you have just called 911 to say you saw a guy involved in a shooting, don’t be in the area when the police show up if you can help it! I’ve said before that if I am ever involved in a shooting, even if I am just a witness, my preferred action is to move to a safe location other than the shooting, and then call 911. Police responding to a shooting in progress can be a little excited. That’s normal and that’s OK but, it presents some hazards if you happen to resemble the suspect. It presents hazards even if you don’t resemble the suspect. So again, just don’t be there.

-GM

SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS – Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

It appears the FBI is looking for a new pistol…In 9mm Luger. The en masse shift by law enforcement from .40 to 9mm continues. Quite honestly, the details suggest they are already looking very hard at Glock to continue providing pistols but, there are certainly other options available.

-GM

This is a PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE of a proposed requirement for various commercial "OFF THE SHELF" semi-automatic pistols chambered to fire a 9mm Luger cartridge as defined by SAAMI. This notice is issued solely for informational and planning purposes only.

via SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS – Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities.

Sonoma County Deputy Erick Gelhaus cleared in shooting of Andy Lopez

So, the California criminal case of Sonoma County Deputy Erick Gelhaus’ shooting Andy Lopez has been resolved, as the DA has declined charges against Gelhaus.

“Prosecutors said Monday they will not file criminal charges against a Northern California sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun he mistook for an assault rifle. The parents of Andy Lopez decried the decision, saying “it is impossible” to accept and they felt as though their son “had been killed again.”

Erick Gelhaus shot Lopez on Oct. 22 as the teen walked in a Santa Rosa neighborhood with the pellet gun. The deputy told investigators he believed the gun was real and opened fire out of fear for his life.

 

Gelhaus fired eight times, striking the eighth-grader seven times with his department-issued 9 mm handgun. The district attorney said Gelhaus had 18 rounds in his gun and stopped shooting when he felt the threat had ended. Lopez was declared dead at the scene.” – via http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7355600-No-charges-for-deputy-who-killed-teen-carrying-replica/

The FBI is still looking into possible Civil Rights violations, and the family will sue. So this is far from over. But let’s look at why Deputy Gelhaus was not charged, even though there was tremendous political pressure.

Graham V Connor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386) states that police use of force must be reasonable given the circumstances available to the officer at the time the trigger is pulled. The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

Monday morning quarterbacking may show different circumstance, but THE OFFICER IS JUDGED ONLY ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE TO THE OFFICER AT THE TIME. When the trigger was pulled, Deputy Gelhaus had an “armed individual refusing multiple lawful orders to comply”. That is what Gelhaus saw, and that is what Gelhaus had a split second to react to. The facts uncovered during the subsequent months long investigation are real vent to the case, but not to the issue of the reasonableness of the use of force.

So was this tragic? Yes. Do police want to kill people? No. Was the suspect in control of the amount of force used? Yes. Did the suspects actions (whether or not he intended) cause the officer to feel threatened? Yes.

The family wants answers. I would too. I would want answers to questions like “why did my son purposefully remove the mandated orange tip on the replica rifle and the replica pistol he was carrying?” “Why was my 13 year old son high on marijuana, and in possession of marijuana at the time of his death?” “Why was my son not in school at 3:12pm when the school let out at 3:30?”

Perhaps the parents don’t want to ask those types of questions. 13 year olds are just kids. They make poor decisions sometimes. It is up to the parents to teach right from wrong. This is tragic for all parties involved.

-Jason