Patriot Mobile

Alternative View on the kid shot carrying a replica AK

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CrankyBuddha

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 26, 2013
    53
    11
    Houston, TX
    I was listening to another radio show and they made, what I think, is a valid point. They theorized that many police departments have essentially trained officers to shoot anyone with a gun that is not in uniform. In shoot houses and training scenarios, the non-shoot targets are all unarmed or uniformed and the shoot targets are armed. This creates a trained reflex of shooting when you see a gun. In a high stress situation,as we have discussed before, you revert to what you have learned by repetition so when a couple of cops in a fairly small, peaceful town (no, Jason this was not LA but a small town in northern CA) roll up and the the adrenaline dump kicks in because they see a guy with a gun they shoot, unfortunately, that can happen whether the suspect shows any indication of violence at all. The simple fact of having a gun makes them a threat. Bottom line, some departments may be training police to shoot armed citizens on sight.

    I don't believe this is a purposeful action (except maybe in Chicago or NYC) and is likely an unintended consequence but it is something that should be looked at.

    -Cranky
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    No, you (and they) have it wrong. Law enforcement agencies don't teach officers to shoot at armed citizens at sight, they are taught to shoot at someone who poses a threat to them. Simply having a firearm isn't justification to shoot unless it is pointed at the officer.

    Take a closer look at what happened, the kid had an Airsoft AK-47 with the orange barrel tip removed; thereby looking like the real thing. In the split second the officer had to evaluate the situation, there was nothing to indicate it wasn't a real firearm. It was pointed at him and he took appropriate action.

    Unfortunately, it was the kid's bad decision that got him killed, not the officer's correct one.
     

    SIG_Fiend

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 21, 2008
    7,218
    66
    Austin, TX
    There is plenty of shoot/no shoot, decision making, problem solving type training and drills that goes on in the LE community. Maybe not with all departments necessarily, but it has become a very common thing, typically built in to department training standards and quals.

    One issue that just simply doesn't seem to get enough, or hardly any, mainstream media focus is the speed at which those sorts of situations can happen. The average person is just simply not accustomed to seeing and acting/reacting in tenths of a second, or at the least not accustomed to thinking in that fine of a degree of time. They hear LEOs "shot a guy in the back 10 times" and immediately jump to conclusions of lack of training or that the LEOs were out to intentionally kill the guy, unprovoked. They fail to see or understand things such as the study performed by a large federal agency that found, on average, the average citizen or LEO in a defensive situation can fire at a rate of roughly 4 rounds per second (.25sec splits). Some people can push 5-6, though that usually takes a pretty well-trained shooter. Couple that with 2-3 officers all firing simultaneously for the span of just 1 second, because the suspect made a sudden jerk or movement the wrong way (intentional or not). 4x3 = 12, and human beings are capable of twisting their bodies and moving within the span of just a few tenths of a second. The average person doesn't see or understand this, or if they do, it's in some other context that hasn't been linked to LE, to self defense shootings, etc.
     

    CrankyBuddha

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 26, 2013
    53
    11
    Houston, TX
    I have some questions.

    How are officers taught to shoot at only people who have a weapon and are a threat? Is it a lecture? Is it using realistic training scenarios similar to the force-on-force scenarios offered by some training companies? How much time is spent in that type of training versus the amount of time spent with paper targets? How can paper targets be used to simulate non-uniformed people with weapons that are not a threat?

    I am pretty sure, that most departments don't have the money needed to to realistic training very often at all. I don't think for a minute that this is an intentional thing. On the contrary, I think it is an unintentional consequence.

    -Cranky
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    I have gone through scenario simulators with both the SAPD and FBI, and can assure you that it is very realistic training and a lot more comprehensive and challenging than the vast majority of commercial training available.

    Most large departments have similar set-ups, so it's probably more common than you think. For smaller agencies, many use available resources from larger departments.

    But regardless of how well trained officers are, there is really no need to second-guess a shoot especially if you don't have any more information on it than what you see, hear and read in the news. Every shooting results in an in-depth investigation and a Grand Jury, and the vast majority of the time the ruling is in the favor of the officer.
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    I would recommend the following if you're really interested in police operations, I've gone through the SAPD course and it will open your eyes as to what law enforcement in your town is all about!

    Volunteer Initiatives Program - Citizens' Police Academy

    Volunteer Initiatives Program

    Citizens' Police Academy (CPA)

    HCPA OBJECTIVE

    The Houston Citizens’ Police Academy (CPA) was organized in 1989 and offers citizens the opportunity to learn about the internal operations of the Houston Police Department. The Citizens’ Police Academy speakers, (mostly Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice experts in their fields), provide lectures, demonstrations, tours, and hands-on activities for Academy participants.

    The overall objective of the Academy is to provide citizens with sound and accurate information about HPD and the criminal justice process so citizens are able to make informed decisions regarding issues / matters involving the police department and/or police activity. Participants will be able to share their experiences and learned information with family, friends, co-workers, and their community to further improve and strengthen community-police relations.

    COURSE CURRICULUM

    Each week, a different discipline or area of HPD is presented such as: Houston Emergency Center (police dispatch), Bomb Squad, SWAT Detail, Hostage Negotiations, Shoot-Don’t Shoot training exercises, Criminal Prosecutions, Mounted Patrol Division, and Helicopter Division.

    Citizens also participate in the department’s Ride-Along program, which allows citizens the opportunity to ride in a police car with a patrol officer.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,748
    96
    Texas
    But regardless of how well trained officers are, there is really no need to second-guess a shoot especially if you don't have any more information on it than what you see, hear and read in the news. Every shooting results in an in-depth investigation and a Grand Jury, and the vast majority of the time the ruling is in the favor of the officer.

    Second guessing as you say, is the only reason police investigations of themselves have any validity. It fosters trust the system is working. It is a good thing.
     

    M. Sage

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2009
    16,298
    21
    San Antonio
    It's an employer's prerogative to question and second-guess any and all actions taken by his/her employee(s). So can we spare the usual whining about second-guesses, please?
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    It's an employer's prerogative to question and second-guess any and all actions taken by his/her employee(s). So can we spare the usual whining about second-guesses, please?

    No one is talking about the "employer" in this case, we're talking about mis- or under-informed citizens who think they know the real story when all they've learned was what they've heard on the news.

    Yes, "whining" is an appropriate term when those individual second-guess the actions of an officer in such a situation. There's little chance they've ever been in a similar situation unless they're in law enforcement or the military.

    It's easy to Monday morning quarterback the events that take place from the luxury of sitting at home behind a keyboard; but until such time they've been put in the same predicament under the same pressures and stresses that the officer in question was under, it's pure and unsubstantiated speculation as to what happened.

    A lot of people seem willing to give a civilian (George Zimmerman) the benefit of the doubt to his actions under similar circumstances, and rightfully so; but when the same happens to a police officer there's a crowd that is convinced that he should have stood there and let an unknown individual point an AK-47 at him without defending his own life. That's pathetic.
     

    CrankyBuddha

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 26, 2013
    53
    11
    Houston, TX
    The original question I posed had nothing to do with second guessing the officer. I posed a valid question about the unintended consequences of training procedures.

    "mis- or under-informed citizens" as you refer to ARE the employers of the police. OUR tax dollars pay for salaries training and equipment.

    I never have understood the railings of the "antis" about "Fascist" police but the statements that have just been made have just helped me understand why they feel that way.

    Don't question us you whining prole?

    That, in essence, is what you just said...

    BTW, the person who originally posed this question and got me thinking about it was a retired marine and a retired police officer.

    -Really Cranky
     
    Last edited:

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    Then your retired Marine/police officer should know better.

    And despite what you think, the police serve the public but are not "employees" of the public. If that were the case, as their employer you would have to right to tell them what to do and fire them under Texas' 'at will' laws.

    Ignorant theories are going to be attacked so next time do some more research or expect a similar response. You were second-guessing the officer as you are insinuating that he made a mistake based on his training; whereas the truth is he did exactly what he was trained to do under such circumstances.

    But I guess you've never had an AK pointed at you under a stressful threat situation, so it's OK for you to speculate how other should react when it happens to them!
     

    CrankyBuddha

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 26, 2013
    53
    11
    Houston, TX
    You are right. I have never had an AK pointed at me under a stressful situation.

    In high school I was there when two gangs decided to throw down. I started walking away when I saw it start and ran like hell when I saw a gun pulled (it was a rough school with 13 rapes in the school my freshman year).

    I have had shots fired at me from a 1911. That was stressful. I have had a Beretta 92 and a Colt Python drawn on me as well. These were stressful as well. I have also faced potential armed robbers on two occasions but was able to avoid the situations by thinking quickly. That was pretty stressful as well.

    I have had an unexpected intruder in my home after we went to bed. It turned out to be a nephew but I had no way of knowing that when I started clearing the house. I was at a gathering when a poker game that turned ugly when tire irons, knives and guns were pulled. That was a bit stressful.

    But, again, you are right, none of those were AKs.

    Although the current administration and their supporters would have you believe otherwise, police are hired by and are part of the government which answers to the people. All citizens are ultimately the "boss" of every government official.

    I was not insinuating anything. I did not say he made a mistake. Based (potentially) on his training he reacted exactly as he should have. It is the training that I question. Are you really saying that the training police officers receive (all across the nation) is perfect and there is no room for improvement?

    -Cranky
     

    SC-Texas

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 7, 2009
    6,040
    96
    Houston, TX
    Well, shooting kids is a great way to bring yourself and your organization closer and strengthen ties with the citizens you serve.

    or maybe, these incidents serve to widen the divide between those who govern and those who are led.


    at some point, this will result in police becoming targets for ambushes which will further strengthen the us v. Them mentality that is forming.
     

    gcmj45acp

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    160
    1
    Houston Metro Area
    Jason, our resident cop has, been round and round on this one. I disagree with the other show's premise/theory simply because it flies in the face of what I've actually seen of police training. Now, it is true that police are trained to recognize that anyone COULD BE a threat. To that end, the simple fact that someone is a child, woman, old geezer, whatever is not and should not be a deciding factor in whether or not to use force because anyone who has worked in 5th Ward (Houston) can tell you a "child" will kill you just as dead as any of the gangbangers. That's the problem I have with harping on this being a "kid." When it was Trayvon Martin, that too was a "kid" and yet most of us recognize that a male subject between 5'10" and 6'2" is not what any of us think of when we hear "kid." Yet in both situations, that is what the shooters (the cop and Zimmerman) were facing.

    The shooting in question here may not have happened in LA but, it was Sonoma County which has a big problem with Latin gang activity right now. It also happened in a part of Califiornia with no provision in its laws to legally open carry of long arms or handguns, let alone a replica AK which itself MUST BE bagged by California law if you're walking in public. In that context, it seems the officers had reasonable suspicion there might be criminal activity and called it in as a suspicious person. Ten seconds later, Lopez had been shot. Now, it is entirely possible that a number of factors made it difficult/impossible for the "kid" to hear/understand the officer's instructions but, that doesn't mean the officer's actions weren't reasonable. Several accounts I've read indicated that Lopez was indeed facing the officers and still had the very real looking "replica" in hand when he was shot. He'd been told to put it down and as far as the officer's knew at that moment, he wasn't complying with the officer's instructions. At least one account says Lopez was in fact raising said "replica" as he turned toward the officers. I've seen no indication Lopez was shot in the back so it seems to me all of those factors amount to a reasonable belief the officer was about to get shot. With all of that said, I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can say they wouldn't have fired in that situation.





    I was listening to another radio show and they made, what I think, is a valid point. They theorized that many police departments have essentially trained officers to shoot anyone with a gun that is not in uniform. In shoot houses and training scenarios, the non-shoot targets are all unarmed or uniformed and the shoot targets are armed. This creates a trained reflex of shooting when you see a gun. In a high stress situation,as we have discussed before, you revert to what you have learned by repetition so when a couple of cops in a fairly small, peaceful town (no, Jason this was not LA but a small town in northern CA) roll up and the the adrenaline dump kicks in because they see a guy with a gun they shoot, unfortunately, that can happen whether the suspect shows any indication of violence at all. The simple fact of having a gun makes them a threat. Bottom line, some departments may be training police to shoot armed citizens on sight.

    I don't believe this is a purposeful action (except maybe in Chicago or NYC) and is likely an unintended consequence but it is something that should be looked at.

    -Cranky
     

    robocop10mm

    Active Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 9, 2009
    996
    21
    Round Rock
    This is a valid point, to a degree. Most, but not all, "shoot targets" are armed AND a threat. There are a few that are just armed and not an immediate threat. Any agency that does not stress LOUD VERBAL COMMANDS is doing a disservice to their constituents. On our range, if you do not ID your self and give loud commands, you fail. ANY shots fired w/o verbalization is a BAD shot.
     

    CrankyBuddha

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 26, 2013
    53
    11
    Houston, TX
    It seems that the officers in Pembrook Park, Florida may not have gotten the memo that they were properly trained NOT to automatically shoot at people with guns. In this case it wasn't a citizen they shot at but one of their own, a plain clothes officer:
    WSVN-TV - Deputies investigated after shooting at officer

    The Sheriff's quote on why shots were fired at the officer:
    "He was in plain clothes. He had a firearm."

    If I remember right, Jason has commented on numerous occasions on the care he and other plain clothes officers take when they are on scene...to avoid bring shot. There was quite a bit of time spent in my CHL class on the same thing. So, is it unreasonable to question whether training should be reviewed for unintentionally reinforcing this type of a reaction?

    -Cranky
     

    gcmj45acp

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    160
    1
    Houston Metro Area
    It seems that the officers in Pembrook Park, Florida may not have gotten the memo that they were properly trained NOT to automatically shoot at people with guns. In this case it wasn't a citizen they shot at but one of their own, a plain clothes officer:
    WSVN-TV - Deputies investigated after shooting at officer

    The Sheriff's quote on why shots were fired at the officer:
    "He was in plain clothes. He had a firearm."

    If I remember right, Jason has commented on numerous occasions on the care he and other plain clothes officers take when they are on scene...to avoid bring shot. There was quite a bit of time spent in my CHL class on the same thing. So, is it unreasonable to question whether training should be reviewed for unintentionally reinforcing this type of a reaction?

    -Cranky

    No, it's not at all unreasonable to ask the question of whether or not the training one agency or another provides is unintentionally reinforcing bad habits. It is however, unreasonably to assume that ALL training does this as training and policy varies from one agency to the next. There may be some agencies with bad policies and bad training and those should be dealt with accordingly but, I don't see that as an indictment against the entire profession.

    To be fair, the incident you cited isn't the first time a plain clothes officer has been shot at and it likely won't be the last. However, when i watched the report and read the story, some key points are being missed. It's not like he was just bebopping along, minding his own business in an otherwise tranquil setting when he got shot at. Correction...that's exactly what he was doing when he decided to interject himself into another agency's chase of an armed suspect. Jason and most other cops would tell you this is a bad idea and rife with opportunities to get shot.

    So now we've got BCSO chasing an armed suspect and as far as they know, some UNIDENTIFIED guy appears with a gun in hand. We don't know if he turned toward the deputies or might have appeared to be moving in the direction of other deputies at the scene with BCSO shot at him. But, you missed/omitted a key part of that quote in that they'd "...never seen him before." And it was only AFTER he'd been shot at that he identified himself on the radio according to that very report.

    Look, we all know the media has a bad habit of omitting details from their stories and providing short sound bites as explanations of problems/incidents that are often far more complex. I'm not saying the Broward County SO didn't screw up but, given the context, this wasn't just a case of them randomly firing at any guy they saw with a gun. A slung rifle or a holstered handgun doesn't usually constitute an immediate threat but, rifles or handguns that are already in hand where they can swing quickly toward you are another issue entirely. What's not mentioned or known is whether or not BCSO verbally challenged Distefano before they shot at him. If they did and he wasn't responsive, it suggests their actions were in fact reasonable given the circumstances.
     
    Top Bottom