Police officer fears using gun while beaten.

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

g.willikers

New member
There's plenty of conversations here and on many other forums about the legal and financial risks of ever using a weapon for self defense.
It's too easy to forget the reason for having weapons in the first place - survival.
This poor lady was apparently willing to be seriously beaten rather than face the ramifications of using her gun to save herself, even when her very life was in danger.
What sense is that?
http://abc7chicago.com/news/chicago-cop-says-she-feared-using-gun-while-being-beaten/1543015/
 
this is a direct result of the de-policing Chicago leadership has pushed. her own lack of will to survive seems to play a part in this too.
 
personally I am glad she showed restraint. all the tough guys cant see millions in riot damage tens of millions paid in law suits more cops shot as the down side. anybody shoots someone over a fist fight should be arrested. if she as a cop sees all the trouble from shooting some one what about a regular guy with a carry permit? she will be out on disability and set for life. a wise decision
 
With due respect, she needs to find another job.
And for bad guys, she has laid her cards on the table.
That attitude could get her and members of the public killed.

The environment and attitudes in today's world also pretty much eliminate Sheriff Andy Taylor from line service.
And that's sad.
 
When they say "beaten" and "to the point of hospitalization".. do they mean she was admitted to the hospital or that she got checked out due to prudence and caution. The story is very vague but generally speaking, I don't think a gun should be used to stop a fist fight. If the Officer genuinely felt like her life was in imminent peril, I think she should have used any and all means to protect herself.
 
anybody shoots someone over a fist fight should be arrested.
Click to expand...

And yet a fist can kill.

Not saying it is acceptable, I'm just pointing out that a fist-fight is not something insignificant.

It can be, but it can also be life-altering and life-ending. It all depends on the circumstances.
 
Regardless of a fists ability to be lethal, the fact is EVERY fight an officer is involved in has a gun present. Right now it might be in the LEO's holster. A cpl good punches may leave the officer unable to retain that gun.

If your physical skills are not up to the task of going hands on, then you need to rely on the tools your dept has provided.
 
I agree with Sharkbite's point that anytime an officer is attacked, weapons are involved fighting could easily turn deadly. In addition to that, attacking a police officer shows a complete disregard for civil order. A physical attack on police is an attack on all of us. I am certainly not saying that police are always right or that they are not sometimes guilty of crossing the line. That is another discussion. I am saying that if someone attacks a police officer, that officer has a responsibility to himself/herself, and to the public to end it. If lethal force is needed, so be it.
 
Last edited:
there is a difference in resisting arrest i.e. trying to get away, and assaulting an officer i.e. staying around to fight. the use of force and the tools used will be different in each occurrence.
 
deadly force in a fight?

I have been in this exact situation...

In my case I was investigating a stolen vehical while walking a foot post in an inner city housing projects. While talking to the group in the stolen van, I foolishly ordered them out. As they piled out they jumped on me, all speaking a language I didn't understand. The one thing I did understand was the word pistola. So I rolled over on top of my gun take the beating.

My logic was that at that point I was overpowered, and introducing my gun into the fight could possibly mean it be used against me.

The thing many people dont understand is bringing a gun into a fist fight, or in my case a stomping may not be the best option.
 
To be sure getting into a beat down while armed leaves you at a very big disadvantage. You truly lose much of the use of your right (usually the strongest) arm as you constantly keep it protecting that gun. It truly sucks wrestling with some nut job armed for just that reason. Further it takes your attention off the perp because you are so busy watching out for the damned gun. It sounds all backwards but believe me when it happens to you the issues are right there in your face and the last thing you want is some puke getting a grip on your holstered gun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was alluded to earlier but I think it bears repeating.

Just because someone is unarmed does not mean they aren't a deadly threat. A fist can absolutely be deadly and no one can predict what will happen next if the officer (or citizen) is incapacitated. Make no mistake, there is no excuse for shooting an unarmed suspect 16 times when he's on the ground or in the back as he's running away.

I read somewhere about a three-pronged approach to determining if deadly force is justified. It was Ability, Proximity, and Intent. All three must be present at the time the trigger is pulled and situations are dynamic and must be continuously reevaluated.

Ability could be a weapon but it could also be disparity in size and strength. Proximity is based on the weapon, if any, and how far away it can be deadly. Intent can be verbal or demonstrated based on actions. If one can use the above protocol, and articulate how they used it after the fact, I think they'll avoid most accusations of excessive force.

One of the biggest mistakes in policing was the shift away from two officers per car or patrol. I believe it was much safer for the officers and the public.
 
anybody shoots someone over a fist fight should be arrested.
And yet a fist can kill. * * *
Click to expand...

Closed-fist blows to the head - whether by a bad guy on a cop or a cop on a bad guy - are considered the use of "lethal force" by the courts due to the severity of injury they can cause, from unconsciousness to death.

A closed-fist is considered a "weapon," analogous to the use of a blunt instrument when used to inflict head blows. That why officers whose departments still issue instruments like the PR-24 "night stick" specifically train them to strike only certain areas on the torso and never the head.

Liberal news media stories will imply otherwise ("The suspect was unarmed when shot while doing a ground-n-pound on the officer's face")

But reporters don't know or care what deadly-force law permits, nor how officers are trained, nor what the actual facts of the encounter are. They've got a deadline to make and the story needs to satisfy the politically-correct editorial viewpoint of their media employer.
 
She either was or wasn't justified in using lethal force, it was her call no point then blaming other factors for influencing her decision. It is also right and proper that police think if their actions are justified before they act. It would be far worse if the police thought they could act without any fear of scrutiny and disciplinary actions.
 
The problem here is she put the public at risk. Had the actor (who was high on PCP at the time) taken her weapon he could have gone on a shooting spree and caused much more damage killing and maiming others.

I'll be surprised if she isn't fired or disciplined in some way.
 
The problem here is she put the public at risk.
Click to expand...

Not to mention her partner, or any fellow officers responding to the scene to assist her.

Had the actor (who was high on PCP at the time) taken her weapon he could have gone on a shooting spree and caused much more damage killing and maiming others.
Click to expand...

I should've have mentioned that officers are also trained that if they are knocked-out from a head-blow, they should ASSUME that the bad guy will take their weapon and use it to shoot them, other officers, or some citizen.

Some years back, in our area, officers got called to the scene of a late-night burglary in progress. Two young officers arrived and a chase of the bad guy ensued. The bad guy happened to be a convicted felon who was out on parole from his last felony. This was unknown to the officers at the time.

In the dark, the officers got separated during a foot pursuit that took them thru backyards, over fences, down alleys, etc., for like 15-minutes.

Finally, one officer tackled the BG in a fenced backyard. Wrestling then began as the officer tried to get him cuffed. The officer tasered him at one point, but it had no effect except to p*ss off the BG more. Anyway, at some point, the BG gets on top of the cop and proceeds to ground-n-pound his head and face with fists, while trying at least twice to unholster the officer's .40-cal Sig 226.

Feeling himself about to pass out, the officer manages to draw his gun and literally blow the "unarmed" BG off him with two shots point-blank to the chest.

While not the worst post-incident media accounts I've read, the local newspaper continually referred to the BG (erroneously - to anyone who understands DF law), as being "unarmed."

No, in fact, he had two "weapons," and was using them almost to the point of lethal effect. Hence, a justified shooting. No criminal prosecution, but there was a later civil lawsuit filed in federal court for "excessive" deadly force ( :rolleyes: ). Fortunately, that dog ended up being tossed with a ruling in favor of the officer and his department.

Just what I know, folks. :cool:
 
The idea that every thing a person does can be twisted where you can die from it is absurd. there are millions of fist fights a year where no one dies. you got more of a chance of being hit by lightning while on your way to cash a 10 million dollar winning lottery ticket then dying from a punch. doctors kill 10's of thousands of people a year do they get shot also. going to a doctor is a lot more dangerous then getting in a fight
 
The idea that every thing a person does can be twisted where you can die from it is absurd. there are millions of fist fights a year where no one dies. you got more of a chance of being hit by lightning while on your way to cash a 10 million dollar winning lottery ticket then dying from a punch. doctors kill 10's of thousands of people a year do they get shot also. going to a doctor is a lot more dangerous then getting in a fight
Click to expand...

Yes, s&b there are many dangers in the world. A fist fight with your brother or neighbor is likely a very different thing than a police officer being attacked. Attacking an armed officer takes it to another level for the reasons already discussed. It tears at the fabric of society. It is also the reason why excessive force against a citizen is an egregious abuse of power. That is a tough spot for a cop. When less than lethal force is appropriate I am all for it, but beating a cop in the performance of his/her duties is not acceptable, and if lethal force is needed to stop it, so be it.
 
Last edited:
The idea that every thing a person does can be twisted where you can die from it is absurd. there are millions of fist fights a year where no one dies. you got more of a chance of being hit by lightning while on your way to cash a 10 million dollar winning lottery ticket then dying from a punch. doctors kill 10's of thousands of people a year do they get shot also. going to a doctor is a lot more dangerous then getting in a fight
Click to expand...

It's not absurd (in the case of fistfights): it is simply less likely than other things. Less likely does not mean impossible.

You at least accept that it (death from a "limbs only" altercation) can happen. Incidentally, I'd love to see corroborating stats on the lightening to fist fight risk comparison you quoted.

In any case, a gun will do little to dissuade lightening, but is probably quite effective at making an assailant think twice.

Finally, I don't see why it need only be about resulting in death.

You may not see many deaths from a fist fight, but there are plenty of occasions when someone is in hospital with serious injuries, who end up with permanent (or long term) physical and emotional sequelae. People end up with punctured lungs, internal bleeding or induced comas to mention but a few. You saying that wouldn't warrant drawing your weapon?

The thing is you just don't know. One punch can land you on your behind and from there a kick to the abdomen can rupture a spleen...

Is there any reason someone who is the subject of a physical attack should not use the means of self defence they have at their disposal?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top